Provided, That each of the above punishments shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On September 25, 2019, at around 23:27, the Defendants were in a female toilet of the first floor of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D building, and Defendant B, at around 3 minutes prior to the discovery of a female-friendly room of the victim E, a female-friendly group C, and a statement to Defendant A, Defendant A, “the thickness”, and Defendant B laid the bank into his own inner side, and Defendant B, with clothes and covers Defendant A so that they could not reveal out of the inner side.

As a result, the Defendants, together, stolen a single single cash 1.5 million won, one motor vehicle smart key, one identification card, and five card.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. 112 Reporting-related departments and notifications;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to visit the site of the incident and to analyze CCTV images);

1. Defendants of the pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act [the Defendants and defense counsel] asserts that the theft of this case was committed by Defendant A, and Defendant B merely intended to commit theft by bringing a gate at the request of Defendant A, and thus, it does not constitute a joint crime. In light of the evidence duly adopted by this court, it is sufficient to view that the conspiracy or conspiracy in a joint crime does not necessarily require any prior consent, but it includes an implied consent at the scene of the crime, and the share of the act of execution does not necessarily mean only a specific act of execution at the same time and at the same time and at a place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do917, Jul. 28, 1992; 2001Do4013, Dec. 11, 2001).