Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On February 2, 2020, the Defendant, at around 20:35, kept a door box located in the C convenience store located in Daejeon Dong-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, by using the gaps in which nearby surveillance was neglected, brought about a theft of one box of a door box containing the victim D (W, 31 years old), which is equivalent to the total market value of 44,000 won, in total, as well as 44,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the report of internal history of the Defendant’s partial statement D (CCTV verification and specification of the suspected person’s personal information) and CCTV image-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As the Defendant and the defense counsel’s argument regarding the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the gist of the argument by the Defendant and the defense counsel came to know of the wounded in the facts charged, there is no intention of unlawful acquisition or theft, and the Defendant again brought the said wounded in, and thus, the fact of theft cannot be recognized.

2. According to the evidence presented prior to the judgment, the defendant recognized the fact that he had a box packed in the tape in which he had been stored at his home, and the defendant stated in the police that "the defendant was scambling, scambling, scambling, and scambling, and he was found to have been known to the public." Thus, the defendant's assertion that the above person was aware of the fact that he did not go to the public or the abolition of the box

In addition, the defendant stated that he would not bring about the above boxes to the original place even though he would have brought about the above boxes, and if he could not find the damaged goods because he did not bring about them to the original place, the intention of illegal acquisition is recognized. Since larceny infringes upon another person's possession and subsequently returned the property to his own possession, it does not affect the establishment of larceny even if he returned the property later.

In this case,