A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,500,000, and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

1. On December 24, 2013, Defendants B conspired with Defendant A, who is the wife, brought anti-confluence and videophones in collusion with Defendant A, which did not bring the Plaintiff to another place. On December 26, 2013, Defendants B carried one half-confluence and videophones equivalent to KRW 520,00,00,000, the victim D’s market price.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to steal the victim's property.

2. On December 24, 2013, Defendant A’s sole criminal conduct committed by Defendant A, with a range of 70,000 won in the market value of the victim D’s ownership, one opportune, one opportune, one opportune amounting to KRW 790,000,000, and one 120,000,000,000 won in the market value.

3. Defendant B’s sole criminal conduct on December 26, 2013, 601, and 3 copies of the window shocking net owned by the victim D were teared, shielded into the gap between the entrance and digital locks, and damaged Defendant B’s sole criminal conduct so that approximately seven million won of repairing cost by leaving water on the floor of the living room.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The prosecutor's office and the police's statement concerning D;

1. Glass photographs, etc. and photographs submitted by the complainants;

1. Written estimate or written confirmation;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act - Defendant A: Articles 329 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 329 of the Criminal Act; Article 329 of the Criminal Act; Selection of each fine - Defendant B: Articles 329 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 366 of the Criminal Act; Selection of each fine

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. This case is difficult to recognize the market price of damaged goods only with the evidentiary materials submitted by the applicants for compensation order pursuant to Articles 25(3)3 and 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits by rejecting applications for compensation order;