However, the defendants are above one year from the date when this judgment became final and conclusive.

On January 26, 2018, around 13:09, the Defendants discovered the victim's name unclaimed fluored bicycle, which was corrected in the victim's name-free box after the 11-ro 6-gil bicycle storage stand, and Defendant A unloaded the bicycle locks on the stones in the vicinity. Defendant C left the direction of Defendant A's fluoring back, and Defendant B led the correction device along with the rest of the Defendants.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A damaged bicycle photograph;

1. On-site closure photographs;

1. Application of the police seizure protocol statutes;

1. The Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 331(2) and 331(1) of the Criminal Act (special larceny)

1. Small-scale mitigated Defendants: 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: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasoning for sentencing under Article 333(1) of the Victim Return Criminal Procedure Act recognizes the Defendants as bicycles neglected, and appears to have committed the instant crime. The theft is recovered, the Defendants have no record of the same kind of crime, and the Defendants’ age, sex, criminal conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc. are considered, and each sentence against the Defendants is determined as ordered by taking into account various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime.