However, the above judgment against the Defendants for two years from the date of this judgment became final and conclusive.

The Defendants, together with Defendant C, conspired with Defendant B to steal gasoline, while they were going to go to the Jink Sea Team at the Changwon-si on the D observer car driven by Defendant B.

On June 19, 2015, the Defendants, in collaboration with C, committed a theft by having 20 literss, which contain 40,000 won-free gasoline equivalent to the market price of the injured party, from the F cafeteria G’s simple warehouse located in the Gu, Jinwon-si, Gowon-si, Gowon-si, and Defendant B and C entered the warehouse into the warehouse, and Defendant A used 20 literss, which carried 20,000 won-free gasoline at the victim’s market price, into the warehouse, and loaded it into the said options car.

In addition, from around that time to around July 10, 2015, Defendants: (a) cut 11 oil transit 220,000 won in total from the market price over five times, such as the [Attachment Table Nos. 1 through 5] between around that time and around that time; and (b) attempted to steals tax-free gasoline, such as the [Attachment Table Nos. 6], and did not constitute a single victim, but did not commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants to the prosecution

1. A protocol concerning the examination of each police suspect with respect to C or H;

1. A written statement of G and I;

1. Each investigation report and the occurrence report;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. The Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 331(2) and 331(1) (a special larceny point) of the Criminal Act, Articles 342, 331(2) and 331(1) of the Criminal Act (a special larceny point) of the same Act;

1. Defendants who are subject to aggravated concurrent crimes: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Small-scale mitigated Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants in the suspension of execution: The defendants in the grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act do not seem to have repeatedly committed the crimes of the same kind of law over a short period of time by combining them. However, considering the fact that there are no criminal records and mistakes in the same kind of law and the fact that they are divided, the damage is compensated, and the victims and the victims have agreed to do so.