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

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 4, 2015, at around 21:30 on March 21, 2015, the Defendant stolen the Defendant with one gallon of an old 2 mobile phone in a gallon of an old 723-9 enterprise bank, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, with the market value equivalent to 600,000 won, which the victim B opened on the cash payment machine.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. B written statements;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (CCTV investigation, CCTV images and suspect statements);

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. The defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is true that he brought about the victim's cell phone (hereinafter "the cell phone of this case") on the date of cash payment. However, he was aware that he was the victim's cell phone of this case. Since the cell phone of this case was broken down or could not be returned to the victim, the defendant's intention of larceny or illegal acquisition was asserted to the effect that he did not have any intention of larceny.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court of this case, namely, the defendant found the instant mobile phone that was placed on the cash payment machine immediately after having arrived at the site of this case in an empty hand and confirmed the screen on which all of the instant mobile phone was used immediately. At the time of finding the instant mobile phone, the defendant could have easily known that not only the special circumstances that make it possible for him to recognize the instant mobile phone as his own at the time of finding the mobile phone, but also the defendant who confirmed the cell phone screen could have easily known that the instant mobile phone was not his own, and that the instant mobile phone was not his own on the day following the day on which the defendant was found as his change, and that the instant mobile phone was not his own on the day after the day of finding the instant mobile phone as his change.

Even if the defendant is the defendant, he shall be the police station.