Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15,000,000.

When the accused does not pay a fine, 100,000 won shall be converted into one day.

Punishment of the crime

On July 4, 2018, around 15:31, 2018, the Defendant displayed “F” 1st floor underground of E department stores located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D in front of the lock-up store, using the gap in the victim G’s supervision neglected.

From then to the 17:30 on the 25th day of the same month, the market price of 50,000 won was 50,000 won by inserting it into the hand room, and then thefted 12 times more than 1,176,303 won, such as the list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement (list 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records;

1. Penalty provisions: Each Criminal Act (Selection of a fine) 329;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes: Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act;

1. Attraction of a workhouse: In that the Defendant was punished twice by a fine for the same kind of crime after the execution of imprisonment on June 6, 2017, the elements of the offender are not good in that the Defendant committed the instant case, even though he was punished twice after the execution of the sentence on June 6, 2017.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant, without economic shortage, stolen damaged goods on the list of crimes that are not necessary; (b) diagnosed with the mental health specialists of various hospitals, such as “psying and shocking military register barriers,” etc.; (c) suffered economic loss (such as mental and medical expenses and attorney fees, etc.) much more than the value of the damaged goods due to the repeated crimes committed by the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant’s family members have suffered from mental shock, it is recognized that there is a very serious shock and difficulty in controlling such shocks.

It is clear that the defendant has been negligent in treating the defendant in a short period after the execution of imprisonment as above, and the defendant has been negligent in treating the defendant recently.

In light of the fact that the purpose of the response is achieved, there is room for special prevention even if it is achieved.

Therefore, it is necessary to review the fine.