A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the defendant A shall be given a consolation for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

On September 21, 2016, A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the Gwangju District Court, for a maximum of one year and four months, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 2, 2017.

On October 26, 2012, at around 02:00, the Defendants opened a door by opening a chip chip of the victim's cash 325,000 won and 40,000 won in the market value. The Defendants brought up one chip of the chip of the chip, which is 325,000 won in cash of the victim and 40,000 won in the market value.

Accordingly, the Defendants, together, stolen the property owned by the victim equivalent to the total market value of KRW 365,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of each police officer against the Defendants

1. Statement prepared by the victim;

1. Previous convictions: Application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes in inquiry about criminal history (A) and each of the written judgments (103 pages of evidence records);

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

1. The first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act for concurrent crimes (defendant A): Provided, That the first sentence of Article 37 (1);

1. Reduction of volume (defendants) Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant A) of the suspended execution;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (as to Defendant B), Defendant A had the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition for the same kind of crime in addition to the previous conviction in the judgment of the court below, and Defendant B has the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition for the same kind of crime several times.

However, in the case of Defendant A, the crime of this case is the concurrent crime between the crime indicated before and after Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Defendant B received juvenile protective disposition as a result of the crime after the crime of this case.

The Defendants became adults, and the crimes committed before five years.