However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

A around May 7, 2018, at around 02:35, the victim D in Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City “EPC room” from the victim, who was an employee of the Kabter in the place, lent one Maxs equivalent to the market value of 100,000 won, and Defendant B, while playing a game with the above Max, destroyed the Maxs while smoking.

The contest was recruited.

According to the above public offering, the Defendants kept the above PC room around 07:00 on the same day, and Defendant B stored the above PC in Defendant A’s bags, and Defendant A knew of such fact, Defendant A went out of the room.

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 of D;

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

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the said Act (The following extenuating circumstances shall be considered among the grounds for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the grounds for sentencing as follows) of the suspended sentence;

1. Scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months but not more than five years;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (a type of determination), thief crimes, theft of general property, and Type 2 (a scope of recommended punishment) (a scope of punishment), from June to June of one year and six months;

3. Determination of sentence: Each of six months of imprisonment with prison labor, one year of suspended execution, and one year defendants' crimes of this case are not good, but the defendants are closely against their mistake when they acknowledged the crimes of this case, the value of damaged goods is not significant, the damaged goods are recovered to the victim, and the victim seems to have been recovered, there is no record of the serious crime exceeding the fine against the defendants A, and there is no record of the same crime against the defendants, and there are other conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendants' age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crimes, etc.