However, for the defendant A from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, one year.

The Defendants discovered ‘D coffee shop' operated by the victim C while drinking another person's goods in order to steals the latter's goods, and sprinking the B in order to find out the same. Defendant B intruded into the victim's shop to commit an act of larcenying cash, etc., and Defendant A viewed Defendant A as a network outside the victim's shop.

On August 31, 2018, the Defendants waiting for the 'D coffee shop' located in Mannam Ma, 03:40 on August 31, 2018, and Defendant A used a small steel safe of approximately KRW 100,000 under the market price of 24,80,000 in cash, which includes the back of the victim's shop and damaged the toilet shock network, etc. in the vicinity of the victim's shop, and Defendant B used it as a small steel safe of KRW 100,00 in cash.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to each photographic and tea making;

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

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

1. The suspended execution (the defendants) recognizes and reflects the errors in sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the damage is minor and agreed with the victim, the family's sincere life for supporting the family, and the record of the crime, etc.