A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three days of detention.

Punishment of the crime

At around July 3, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed theft by opening and bringing about a cover of approximately KRW 500 won in the market price of the 5 (1 line) unit, which covers the victim’s c apartment 107-on the front of the c apartment 107-dong, Osan City, Osan-si, in order to deliver it to the victim D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the same Act regarding criminal facts and Article 329 of the option of punishment stipulate the statutory penalty for not more than six years, or for a fine not exceeding ten million won. However, in this case where only the defendant requests formal trial with respect to a summary judgment which has been sentenced to minor penal detention than a fine, the defendant cannot be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or a fine higher than that of penal detention under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, and thus, he/she shall choose the penalty

The judgment regarding the issue of larceny is that when the possession of another person is infringed and the property is moved to his own possession, that is, when he is placed under his factual control, that is, when he is in his possession, it can be taken, and that a small object which can be easily transported is placed in the actual control of the criminal, even if the criminal is in his possession, and that the criminal acquired it.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was found to have opened a cover of plastic gambling that the victim left to deliver and moved out one of the required lines. In light of the above legal principles, the defendant's possession of the victim's demand rate is deemed to have been infringed and its factual control has been moved to the defendant. Therefore, larceny has been invalidated.

On the other hand, according to the above evidence, it was discovered that the victim was dismissed immediately after the defendant satisfyed, and it was satisfying the side floor of the sat.