However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, each of the above three years against the Defendants.

[criminal record] On November 6, 2003, Defendant A received juvenile protective disposition from Busan District Court due to special larceny, etc., and Defendant B received juvenile protective disposition from Busan District Prosecutors' Office due to special larceny on September 4, 2003.

【Criminal Facts】

1. The Defendants’ co-principal recruited to look at entertainment taverns and steals alcoholic beverages for the purpose of raising a living cost between natives, and then purchased used cars, seeing the Seoul metropolitan area and local areas, and color the subject of the crime.

At around 02:30 to 09:00 on November 26, 2012, the Defendants parked the above vehicle in front of the “H” operated by the injured party G in the Gu F during the period of loading and unloading the e-verification car, and Defendant A reported the network. Defendant B destroyed the door door of the vehicle by taking advantage of the rash (the continuous 'fluor’) and intruded into the display site, and carried the vehicle into the above vehicle with 100,000 won at the market price of the victim G owned by the G, which was displayed at the display site.

The Defendants jointly and habitually invaded the nation through the aforementioned method, and attempted to steal or steal the cash and the share amounting to KRW 32,280,000, which is the total market price of the victims, over 24 times from November 21, 2012 to December 21, 2012, as shown in the list of crimes, from around November 21, 2012.

2. Defendant A: (a) around 06:40 on December 26, 2012, at the “K” operated by the victim J of J in J in J in J in J in J in J in J in J in J in J in J in J in J in J in J, the said victim left away, so that he could steals alcoholic beverages, etc. which are worth or value by using a gap in surveillance negligence; and (b) he destroyed and intruded the entrance of the said main entrance by using a rashing off (hereinafter referred to as “fluor”), and carried out a 35-walk of the market price, which was owned by the victim who was in the air conditioners.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1..