The Defendants were willing to steal the victim's possession in the victim's logistics warehouse, together with F of the victim's employees, on the ground that the victim's treatment was unfair while in office E, the victim's employees.

On January 30, 2018, around 19:00, at the victim's logistics warehouse located in Jung-gu G and 4th floor in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and the fourth floor, the Defendants entered the password of the victim's logistics warehouse known in advance from the head of the office of the victim with no knowledge of his/her name, and invaded into the logistics warehouse with four clothing points in the aggregate amount of KRW 1,70,000 in the market price. From that time to February 19, 2018, the Defendants possessed the goods owned by the victim three times in total as shown in the list of crimes in the annexed sheet.

Accordingly, the defendants stolen the victim's goods together with F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect with respect to F;

1. Application of statutes on police statements made to H to H;

1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Six months of imprisonment with prison labor for which a sentence is suspended; and

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for six to seven months;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Determination of types: ththief for general property (type 2) in general theft;

B. There is no special sentencing factor:

(c) The sphere of recommendation and the scope of recommendations: Basic field, imprisonment for not less than six months but not more than one year and not more than six months; and

3. The fact that the Defendants appears to have recognized all of the instant crimes, including the fact that there is no record of committing another crime, the fact that the damage was recovered, and the agreement with the victim was reached, and that the suspension of indictment was made with respect to F, an accomplice.