However, for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive against the Defendants.

1. Special larceny Defendants conspired at the Automobile Maintenance Center for the Management of the Victim C to steal a vehicle driver.

On November 11, 2014, at around 07:00, the Defendants parked the cargo vehicles of Defendant A, which were loaded in Ulsanbuk-gu, and entered the above maintenance center by making use of the gap where the victim's surveillance is neglected, and moved 17 vehicles used in front of the container, and loaded 17 vehicles used in front of the container.

Accordingly, the Defendants, together, stolen the amount equivalent to 610,000 won of the 17 driver's market price for vehicles owned by the victims.

2. Defendant A transferred at around 17:30 of the same month the amount equivalent to KRW 240,000 at the market price of eight vehicles owned by the victim in the same manner as at the same place as at around 14:30 of the same month to the cargo vehicle and stolen it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Defendant A (a) of Article 331(2) and Article 331(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the same Act: Article 329 of the Criminal Act (a)

1. Defendant A from among concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the community service order: The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommending punishment] The mitigated area (one to six months) of category 1 of the Criminal Act (the theft of goods in custody, etc.) [Special Mitigation] [the Defendants] was denied the Defendants’ intention of larceny in the event they bring about the goods in question to the knowledge that they are the goods in question. However, the following circumstances, where the evidence in the judgment can be comprehensively taken into account, the victims, who had been aware of the damage in question, are in the CCTV shooting in containers by thefting them more than once, would not bring about a spread.