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

1. On September 19, 2014, at around 04:05, the Defendants and D (Co-defendant prior to the separation) came to G operated by the Victim F F in order to operate the victim E at regular Eup/Myeon. Defendant A reported the network at the neighboring area, Defendant B and D caused the above entrance door by hand, and Defendant B and D got into the said shop and stolen 2.30,000 won in cash owned by the victim of the said shop.

2. On September 19, 2014, at around 05:07, the Defendants and D ( Co-Defendant 1) committed a theft with the cash of KRW 300,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

As a result, the defendants and the D (Co-defendant prior to separation) stolen the victims' property on two occasions together.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A written statement of I;

1. A report on the occurrence of a crime and a report on the arrest of a case;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Requests for appraisal of the scene of the crime and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes regarding fingerprinting results;

1. Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds that Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the suspended sentence (the victims do not want the punishment of the Defendants by mutual consent with the victims, each of the defendants is against the victim, each of the defendants is an initial crime, and other circumstances such as the age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime) is higher than that of the victim.