The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

1. On April 2, 2013, the Defendants conspired to purchase at least KRW 50,000,00 even though they knew that the 700,000 of the market price in possession of the victim was the gallon in the name-free taxi that he/she acquired or stolen from the 588-type taxi driver located in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seodong-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul.

The Defendants conspired to purchase six smartphones in the same way as indicated in the attached list of crimes (1) from around that time to April 9, 2013 by being aware of the fact that the six smartphones are stolen in the same way.

2. On April 9, 2013, Defendant B, who was the sole criminal defendant of Defendant B, purchased the paper smartphone 1, which is the victim’s possession, from the 588-type taxi engineer in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, with the knowledge of the fact that he/she was the stolen goods.

In addition, from around that time to April 16, 2013, the Defendant knowingly purchased four smartphones in the same way as indicated in the attached list of crimes (2).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (subject matters of inspection);

1. Relevant Articles 362 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and the choice of punishment;

2. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse.

3. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the provisional payment orders.