However, as to the Defendants for two years from the date of the final judgment of this case, the Defendants are above.

Defendants are people working in a personal position related to the telecommunications business.

Defendant

On December 2, 2012, A became aware of the fact that a cable was laid underground in the vicinity of the Gangseo-gu Telecommunication Mandones, while working as a part of a daily watch at the construction site of the Telecommunication Cable (materials: Dong) in the Seocho-gu Telecommunication Cable (U.S.) and informed the Defendants B and C thereof. The Defendants were willing to steal the said cable. Defendant A was in charge of the provision of vehicles and equipment, on-site monitoring, and sales of stolen goods, and Defendant B and C were to take charge of the role of cutting the cable and cutting it out.

At around 06:00 on February 24, 2013, the Defendants: (a) arrived at the vicinity of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yangyang-gu, Yangpo-gun; (b) opened a lid of Manle lid; and (c) cut the cables by using a cutting machine prepared in advance; and (d) cut the cables by connecting the cables with the wire line and the above-mentioned vehicles; and (b) cut the cables by carrying them onto the above vehicles, the diameter of diameter of 8 centimeters, 121 meters in length, and the cable market value of 8,310,764 won in length, the cable market value of which is 121 meters in length.

As a result, the Defendants committed a theft of another's property jointly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Attachment of Special thief photographs);

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

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see: e.g., Reasons for sentencing)

1. Defendants of the community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation Defendant A: The Defendants’ reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act are deeply divided and reflected in the instant crime, the fact that the Defendants do not have the same criminal power, and all damaged articles were recovered, and others.