A Imprisonment for eight months, for six months, for six months, and for eight months, for each of the defendants C.

(b).

On May 23, 2017, the Defendants conspired to steal the gap in which the main supervisor's surveillance was neglected by using the E-wing truck owned by Defendant C, from around May 23, 2017, with the knowledge of the fact that they were in common, from other farmers.

1. On May 23, 2017, the Defendants discovered, around 08:40 on May 23, 2017, the victim F’s market value, which the victim possessed in front of the victim F’s house located in G in the elderly north-gun G, was 126, and Defendant B saw that the victim was seated in the truck’s seat, and Defendant C and Defendant A loaded the cargo onto the cargo vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendants committed a theft of the property owned by the victim jointly.

2. On May 23, 2017, the Defendants: (a) stolen approximately 100 km (100 km, such as slicks, teas, and steel bars, in the same manner as indicated in paragraph (1) from the house of the network J (H’s house located in the lower village of the Ha) managed by the Defendant Hah-gun Hah on May 23, 2017; and (b) loaded the said cargo onto the train.

As a result, the defendants stolen the other's property managed by the injured party together.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each statement made to F and H:

1. Application of the shape of the case, photographs of damaged articles, photographs, and CCTV-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 331(2) and 331(1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount (the Defendants)

1. Article 37 (former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. In that the defendants in the grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act committed a theft of property jointly by using a vehicle, the liability for the crime is not weak. In particular, even though there are many kinds of penalties, the defendant A is not likely to be subject to criticism in the crime even if there are many kinds of penalties.

However, all of the defendants committed the crime in this case, and the value of the damaged goods is relatively short.