Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 6, 2020, the Defendant invadedd a structure by entering the victim D (60 years of age) with the victim D (60) who was in charge of the management in B and 2 level in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, as the public suspender of the first floor between the victim and the second level, and then using the Defendant’s personal identification of the Gosiwon’s personal identification number to gather the password of the Cgate between the first floor and the second floor C, and intrudes on the structure managed by the victim for the purpose of theft.

2. The thief Defendant stolen the victim’s property by breaking the structure managed by the victim D at the same time, and at the same place as the above 1 paragraph, 45,500 won of rice 20KG 1 b0 won of the market price owned by the victim, which was placed in front of the victim D’s office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation of the defendant's legal statement D (on-site visits and CCTV images);

1. Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime (a point of intrusion on a structure) of the relevant Act;

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

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The Defendant has a claim equivalent to the amount of money that he/she has stolen against the victim.” However, as alleged by the Defendant, there is a claim for return against the victim of rice distribution equivalent to 10 km.”

However, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act of recovering the relevant claim without following lawful legal procedures is permissible under social norms. Moreover, the Defendant’s act is deemed to be permissible even if the Defendant’s act was committed on the grounds of sentencing (i.e., rice distribution with a large amount of 20 km away from the amount claimed by the Defendant) and the crime of this case is deemed to be a crime that steals the rice of the Defendant’s possession of a large amount of rice that the Defendant had invaded upon the public notice board managed by the victim.

It is difficult to see.