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

During the period of having experienced economic difficulties due to business failure, etc., the Defendants never heard that the victim F did not keep large cash in the vehicle, which occurred while operating the Internet site of the illegal sports soil site, and sought ways to steals it. On August 6, 2016, the Defendants attempted to steal money and valuables in the vehicle on the ground that the victim G bents of the victim was parked in a state where the rear bents of the victim's G bents were not in contact with the rear bents.

On August 6, 2016, at around 21:10, the Defendants came to walk up with the second apartment of 102 the Seo-gu Incheon Scambro 53 Scam, Seo-gu, Incheon, and Defendant A, Defendant C, who was parked in front of the said apartment building 102, and kept the surrounding area. Defendant A, Defendant C, and Defendant C opened a door of the said scambling vehicle of the victim who was parked in front of the said apartment building 102, and took up approximately KRW 78 million in cash owned by the victim who was in front of the subsequent scam, and knifties owned by the victim who was in front of the scambling line, KRW 78 million in cash owned by the victim, KRW 300,00 in the middle scambling line (at a market price of 300,00 won), one head of the agricultural cooperative head of the Tong, and one scambling card, one mobile phone, and one 1.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made to F and H;

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. A report on internal investigation (the tracking of a suspected suspect);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to CCTV photograph data, CCTV additional photograph data, and CCTV additional data;

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

1. Defendants subject to suspended execution: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances are considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Defendants of the community service order: Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [the range of recommending punishment] basic area of larceny for general property (general larceny) (six months to one year).