Defendant

order B to be subject to the protection observation.

Defendants were in possession of Defendant B during the period of viewing the Defendant B’s network, and was in possession of the Defendant A, in the case of being in possession of the Defendant B, at the time of an Ansan-si’s 2nd page of the 61 upper half of the 61 upper half of the 2015 upper half of the 2015 upper half of the 61 upper half of the 61st half of the 2015

C caused an error in a bicycle locking device using ID for each pedal, thereby reducing one bicycle set at the market price of 550,000 won owned by the victim Ansan-si from the locking device.

During the period of Defendant A’s net, Defendant B, in the above manner, deducted the amount of 550,000 won or more at the market price owned by the victim Ansan-si from the locking device.

They brought to Korea.

As a result, the Defendants jointly stolen two bicycles equivalent to the total amount of KRW 1,100,000 in the market value owned by the victim Ansan-si. The summary of the evidence is the summary.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

1. Article 331(2) and Article 331(1) of the Criminal Act on criminal facts

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

1. Six months of imprisonment to be suspended;

1. Articles 59(1) and 59(2) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1248, Apr. 2, 2006)

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of the observation of protection (defendant B) Article 59-2(1) of the Criminal Act or more.