The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On August 15, 2014, at around 20:30 on August 15, 2014, the Defendant, a summary of the facts charged, stolen the victim E management, an employee, by calculating only other purchased goods in the calculation unit, on the 10th day of the 20th day of the 20th day (26,90 won) sold in D located in Suwon-gu, Busan.

2. The Defendant asserted that, from the police station to the instant court, the Defendant: (a) cut string of slovas, which was reported at the time of purchasing various goods at the large retailer; and (b) took a slovas’s slovas’s slovas’s slovas with low price; and (c) was merely passed without calculating the remaining slovas slovas due care under the influence of alcohol; and (d) did not intend to commit theft.

3. Determination

A. Among the evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, the investigation report prepared by the police (except the attached photographs No. 7, No. 8, of the evidence record) is inadmissible without the consent of the defendant.

B. On August 15, 2014, at the time of the instant case, F, an employee of the said large retailer, who was discovered by the Defendant as a larceny, drafted a victim’s statement (Evidence No. 4, 5 pages) at the police station on the day of the instant case.

F was present as a witness in this court on August 31, 2015, the F stated to the effect that “The theft case is frequently present, and this case is not memory at all past one year.”

Ultimately, as evidence directly corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case, there are images of the F’s statement and the movement pictures (Evidence No. 9).

The summary of the above written statement is that "the defendant discarded the sloter he reported and added a grhetor to calculate only the small amount of goods except the gratization," and the photographic picture is not attached to the physicalization reported by the defendant. According to the above evidence, it is doubtful that the defendant stolen the price list of gratization in a planned way and gratization.