However, as to the defendants, two years from the date of this judgment became final and conclusive.

On March 4, 2016, the Defendants: (a) around 17:30 on March 4, 2016, around 17:30, 2016, the victim C, which is located in the center of the Jung-gu in Busan City, was managed by the victim C, and (b) the Defendant B reported the network, and (c) the Defendant A made use of the gap in which the employee’s surveillance is neglected, in his/her display stand, one of the five thousand won of the market price, which is located in the display stand, into his/her hand, and (d) three of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two of the two in which the market price is 1,00 won.

As a result, the Defendants stolen the total amount of 8,500 won of the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, receipts, photographs, grandchildren of damaged articles;

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

1. Reduction of quantities under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (i.e., reflection of the depth of the crime, and the recovery of all damaged articles to the victim);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for a suspended sentence (the grounds for a suspended sentence shall be repeatedly considered);

1. Defendant A: The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommendations] / [the grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act / [the scope of recommendations] / There is no person who is in charge of special sentencing] in the basic area (six months to one year and six months) (the person who is in charge of special sentencing] / Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspended execution 2 years, Defendant B who observe protection: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and suspended execution 2 years;