Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On October 13, 2018, at around 19:00, the Defendants conspired to commit theft with the goods equivalent to KRW 3.180,000,00 in total market price of the same tank owned by the victim E, 47 punishment, 47 punishment, 47 punishment, 80,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of E;

1. Investigation report (F telephone conversations for reference) and investigation report ( telephone conversations for reference G telephone);

1. Application of CCTV video CDs and respective Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Defendants: Articles 329 and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. A fine of 500,000 won to be suspended against Defendant B;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act:

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant A) of the Provisional Payment Order (hereinafter “Defendant A”) asserts that the Defendant and his defense counsel only carried out the victim’s abandoned articles for the purpose of saving waste treatment costs in the course of closing the Switzerland operated for the same business with the victim, and that there is no intent to acquire illegal gains. However, the victim merely carried out the articles in a stuff in most of the damaged articles, and it does not seem that there is no economic value even if the damaged articles were stored in the stuff in most of the packaging. However, if the victim could be simply confirmed whether the above articles were actually abandoned or discarded, but it could not be simply confirmed that the above articles were destroyed by the victim’s arbitrary removal without the need to be carried out at will (the date of delivery to the lessor remains one week, and thus there is no urgent circumstance to be carried out by the lessor.

Even if the Defendants were to take out not for economic purposes but for disposal of the said articles, the perception that the Defendants infringed the victims’ ownership of the said articles would be minimal.