However, the above sentence against Defendant B for three years from the date of the above judgment.

around 08:10 on July 7, 2015, the Defendants discovered out air conditioners (up to 300,000 won at the market price) owned by the victim D, which are installed by the victim D, who operates the “C carbook” in the neighboring building in the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Samyang-gu, Seoul, and Defendant A set up electric wires connected to the above Air conditioners with the outer air conditioners, and Defendant B carried out the air conditioners by transporting the said air conditioners together with Defendant A.

As a result, the defendants stolen the victim's property together.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning D police statements;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant B: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation and community service order Defendant B: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Confiscation Defendant A: The reason for sentencing of Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] : The basic area of punishment of Type II (general larceny) and the scope of sentence comparison between punishment and recommended punishment: one year to one year [the decision of sentence] / one year to one year / one year / six months / one year / one year / one year / one year / one 300,000 won of the victim's property can be easily stolen for the benefit of 6,00 won of the victim's property, and the defendants can have the record of having been sentenced to a fine or heavier punishment for larceny. Defendant A has a lot of same criminal records as well as the punishment sentenced to a fine on July 1, 2015. Defendant B has a lot of history of having been sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime, the victim wants to be punished, the risk of damage to Defendant A's residence is not recovered, and the risk of recidivism against the victim's residence is high.

However, the defendants were committed in all of the crimes of this case, and the defendants were able to repent of wrong facts, and the age of the defendants is.