Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

1. E summary operated by the Defendant who intrudes into a building on June 12, 201 by the victim D, at the time of 10:55, on June 12, 2011

In the main point, it opened a entrance that has not been corrected for drinking alcohol, and intrudes on the said main points.

2. After intrusion into the above brewing point as stipulated in paragraph (1), the Defendant stolen it by taking out a 10,000 won of the market price owned by the victim and taking out a 2 bottle of drinking water equivalent to 10,000 won of the market price, 10,000 won of the market price, and 20,000 won of the market price, without permission of the victim D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A report on the occurrence and an investigation;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant alleged that he was a woman to whom he was aware at the time, and did not enter the above main points, and did not find the main points. Even though he did not enter the main points within the above main points, he did not take the main points, and was drinking in a high-frequency coolant, and thus, he did not have the intention of entering the structure and theft.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, the officer located in the same building as the above main points, which the defendant was not a woman who was accommodated at the time, and the officer who appears to have been accommodated in the above main points is located approximately 50 meters away from the above main points, and the shape or structure of the entrance was also different from that of the above main points, and the defendant entered the above main points during a time other than the business hours. In addition, there is somewhat little physical evidence in the process of opening the entrance.