However, as to the Defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On September 11, 2018, at around 11:35, the Defendants found the victim D and E directors set up in the alleyway located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in the process of diving, and decided to steal the property located in the bank and the bank. Defendant B removed the liquid book attached to the above bank, and Defendant A confirmed the contents of the above wall with Defendant B by cutting out the wall attached to the above bank.

The Defendants continued to live in the vicinity of diving, and Defendant A laid the above bank, etc., and left the site.

As a result, the Defendants jointly stolen the victim D's D's 1 verification color 50,00 won of the market price, the victim D's 50,000 won of the market price, the 1st, the mobile phone charging machine and the computer connecting line, 1st, the high-speed click click click click click click clck equivalent to 1,000,000 won of the market price of the victim E, 1, the 300,000,000 won of the market price, 7 smartphone lclcl, the card and identification card, etc. contained in the above wall.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Investigation report (Attachment to a photograph of a CCTV image taken in a criminal form);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a CCTV image closure photograph;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants of the community service order: Determination on the Defendants and defense counsel’ assertion under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation Act

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendants thought that they were lost and reported to the police station. Therefore, there was no intention to larceny.

2. The judgment of this court is legitimate.