A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates the removal business under the trade name of “C removal”.

On June 27, 2011, the Defendant: (a) instructed the removal of the virtue (e.g., replacement facilities) connected to the 8th floor of the above 8th floor to the 7th floor of the building; (b) did not obtain the express permission of the victim E and the victim F to move into the 7th floor of the above 7th floor; (c) cut off two of the virtue-gu, the victim E, connected to the 9th floor of the above 7th floor; (d) cut off the 3th floor of the above 3rd underground floor of the building; and (e) on July 1, 201, the market value of the above 3rd floor of the building, which was kept in custody, to the 8th floor of the building; and (e) took the removal work, without obtaining the consent of the above victims E and the victim E to move into the 7th floor of the building; and (e) took off the 40th floor of the 3rd floor of the building; and (e) took out the 40th floor of G.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the property owned by the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement of E, J, K, L and M in the protocol of trial;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Written estimate of damage;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a removal contract;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 329 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (including the fact that the perception of intention or illegality of the crime is deemed to have been weak);

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion regarding the cost of the lawsuit is proved to the purport that, while removing the 8th floor duct, the Defendant obtained consent from L, Co., Ltd., which ordered the removal of the 8th floor duct and disposed of to the 7th floor and the 9th floor duct, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to larceny.

However, according to the evidence examined above, L is only a fact that L only talks to the purport that it is possible to confirm the main body of the relevant floor, and there is no talk that L will bring about it to the defendant, and the defendant will do so.