However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive against the Defendants.

On November 2012, 2012, the Defendants: (a) stolen a mobile phone device from the mobile phone agency and conspired to sell it in order to prepare living expenses in Defendant A’s DCCB car.

On November 16, 2012, at around 03:33, the Defendants moved to the “G” mobile phone unit for the operation of the Victim F in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seo-gu E, with bricks in the surrounding area, thereby destroying the glass of the said store, and entered the said store with the cell phone 17 mobile phone 16,192,200 won in total, including the 17 mobile phone unit for the victim owned by the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly stolen the victim’s property as seen above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. A written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (to analyze the video recording data of theCCTV), the investigation report (investigation of the damaged goods), and the investigation report (Correction of the Amount of damage);

1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (number of offenses is one time, taking into account that there is no previous and special criminal records, agreed points, etc.);