However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On September 3, 2014, at around 16:00, the Defendants conspired to steal the virtue and the design by using the gap in which the victim grasium and the grasium were cut off while grascing the virtue and the grasium.

Defendant

A made use of his hand and tree kg and 2.9kg of Doradon, which is the victim's possession, and Defendant B, using his hand and tree knicks, cut off 1.9kg and 1kg of Doradon, which is the victim's ownership, and then brought them together, more than 360,000 won (40,000 won per 1kg) and 3.9kg (30,000 won per 1kg) of a total market value of 120,000 won.

As a result, the defendants stolen the victim's property together.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Some statements in the prosecutor's statement concerning D;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1548, Apr. 1, 201; Supreme Court Decision 2006Do148, Apr. 2, 2006)

1. Defendants subject to suspended execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( repeatedly considering the grounds for discretionary mitigation);

1. Defendants of the community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act