However, it is against the Defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

around October 2, 2016, Defendants conspired to steal precious metal from the gold bank in the vicinity of the Nam-dong Industrial tower in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do.

The Defendants purchased KONs, locks, etc. to be used for committing the crime in the Nowon-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-dong and its racing zone by getting a F-car to board and drive D, E, and then came ahead of the “J” funds for the operation of the victim I in the H market located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 03:57 on the same day.

The Defendants reported the network within a passenger car, D, and E worn the KON machine and lock, cut off the network, set off the door three times with the glass door of the metal, and destroyed the door by three times, but they did not come to an attempted attempt but with the wind that the crime prevention system operates.

As a result, the Defendants attempted to steal the victim's property in collaboration with D and E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of D or E;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Each internal investigation report and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing each investigation report;

1. Articles 342 and 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of attempted crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (Article 60 (3) of the Juvenile Act in cases of the defendants and the defendants A);

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

1. Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act (Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act (Article 48(1)1 (Article 48(1)1 (Article 48(1)1), Nos. 2 (Article 2), and Nos. 3 (ON 2) of the Evidence A provided for the Criminal Act) provides that the risk of causing the act of reason for sentencing may not be concerned, and that it is highly likely to be criticized in that it allows the Defendants to act in person with the age of the Defendants, D, and E, and that the Defendants agreed to do so smoothly with the victims; that the Defendants are against each other, and that the Defendants’ age, character, and environment are considered as a whole.