However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for one year.

On December 16, 2019, at around 14:00 on December 16, 2019, the Defendants moved the amount of 100 percent of the total market value of the victim owned by the Defendants E in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, and the Defendant C moved the amount of 100 percent of the total market value of the victim owned by the Defendants to F vehicle owned by the Defendant B.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the Defendants’ respective legal statements on the written self-written statement of the victim of each police interrogation protocol (such as the situation at the time of appearance)

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

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

1. Defendants on probation: There is no particular criminal record against the Defendants on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act.

Although the defendants did not receive the victim's statements, they are in depth against the victim's statements.

In addition, the sentencing conditions of the Defendants, such as their respective ages, character and conduct, environment, circumstances, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as per the order.