2. B

3. A;

【Criminal Power】

Defendant E was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Seoul Northern District Court on April 18, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 26, 2012, and all the Defendants were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special robbery, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on September 27, 2013 (two years and six months in case of Defendant E, and three years in case of Defendant B and Defendant A) and are still pending in the appellate trial at the Seoul High Court.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendants posted an advertisement to the effect that "the purchase of all mobile phones" is "the purchase of all mobile phones at the Internet AB site," which they came to know at the time of the acceptance of the juvenile reformatory, and that they reported it and provided cash and high-priced smartphones to high school students, and entertainment expenses, etc. Accordingly, the defendant E acts to restrain the victims, the defendant Eul acts to drive the vehicle and control the victims along with E, and the defendant A works to attract victims after posting an advertisement of the purchase of the mobile phones using the Internet-based mobile phones under the name of foreigners.

On December 3, 2012, at AD elementary school located in Gui-si AC around 22:00, the Defendants reported mobile phone purchase advertisements whose victim AE (the age of 17) was listed in the Internet Nene “AB” car, and induced the victim to contact, forced the victim into the back seat of the AF white car owned by Defendant B, and returned approximately two hours to the Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdongdong Station with approximately 20 km away from that place to the back seat of the Seoul Seongdong-gu, Seoul, with approximately 1m no longer than 1m no longer in the length prepared in advance, and show the decline tools, such as “the victim is murder and Chinese.” The victim is a person who takes human trafficking. The victim was frightd with the victim, and the victim was able to be released from the victim’s cell phone with his/her desire to take part in the victim’s cell phone and the victim’s knish with his/her desire to take part in the victim’s mobile phone over the victim’s hand.

As such, the Defendants received money equivalent to KRW 1808,000,000 from the victim’s market value, which is equivalent to KRW 800,000,000,000,000, in gallon city of gallon city of the victim’s market value, i.e., 90,000,000 in total, and 18,000,000 in cash possessed by the victim’s main machine.

As a result, the Defendants took the money and valuables of the victims by jointly assaulting and threatening the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. The police statement of the E;

1. Investigation report (related to the preparation of victim AE of robbery and statement);

1. Previous records before ruling: Each inquiry report on criminal records, etc., each individual identification and confinement status, investigation report (a copy of the judgment attached thereto);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to the facts constituting the crime and the choice of punishment (defendants);

Articles 334(2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act (the point of special robbery and the choice of limited imprisonment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for a period of two years and six months to fifteen years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Robbery, General Criteria, Type 2 (Special Robbery)

[Decision of Recommendation] Three years to Six years (Basic Area)

3. Determination of sentence;

The crime of this case committed by the Defendants is not suitable for committing the crime of this case by force by assaulting and threatening the victim, and by forceing high-priced smartphones, etc., on the Internet. However, considering the fact that the Defendants were already indicted for a similar crime committed at the time similar to the crime of this case and were sentenced to imprisonment and are currently serving in the appellate trial, the punishment shall be determined by taking into account the fact that the Defendants are currently serving in the trial.

The number of judges

Judges Doo-leap