(b) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

(c) Larceny;

2. A. (c) B

Attorney D in charge, E

Attorney F (Korean National Assembly for Defendant B)

Where a defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the defendant A shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant A and the above sentence against Defendant B shall be suspended.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

(a) Special larceny;

The Defendants were urged to steal a female who passed the way by using Oral Ba in the middle of elementary school, with the so-called ‘daylight' method against the female who was in the middle of the way.

On July 25, 2013, at around 00:10 on July 25, 2013, the Defendants discovered the victims (e.g., age 59) who had been walking at the front of the “H parking lot” located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Accordingly, Defendant A driven J's 49cc Oba, and Defendant B got up to the back of the back, and Defendant B got up one 'Handbagbagbagbagbagbagbagbagbagbagbagbagbags equivalent to approximately KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, where Defendant B got out of the back of the victim's shoulder.

Accordingly, the Defendants, together, stolen the victim's property worth approximately KRW 2890,000 in total of the market price.

(b) Injury by assault;

The Defendants, at the above date and at the above time and place, committed assault to the victim who was engaged in the above victim by setting up the Defendant B's bank in a pure manner, and the victim got out of the flab by force.

As a result, the defendants jointly assaulted the victim and thereby suffered about two weeks of medical treatment to the victim.

2. Defendant A

At around 00:00 on the same day as described in paragraph 1, the Defendant driven the above J's 'Bono 49c' motor bicycle in approximately 4 km from the head of the "Sho-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 127-9 on the same day to the front of the "H parking lot" as described in paragraph 1 at around 00:10 on the same day.

3. Defendant B

At around 03:50 on July 28, 2013, the Defendant: (a) accessed the said JJ’s 49C’s “Nanno 49C” on the roads located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul; (b) 200,000 won in cash, which was owned by the victim, which was set down on the floor of a locking time by his female; (c) 200,000 U.S. dollars 1 in paper paper waste 2; and (d) 1 in white handbag in which the victim’s resident registration certificate was included.

Summary of Evidence

[Each fact of paragraphs 1 and 2 at the Time of Sales]

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. A report on internal investigation (investigation of CCTVs around the scene of occurrence), investigation report (price of damaged goods), investigation report (related to attachment of a medical certificate of injury), investigation report (Attachment of a distance map of unlicensed driving);

【Fact 3 at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Lritten statements;

1. A report on investigation;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

(a) Defendant A: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of special larceny), Article 262, Article 260(1), Article 257(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing violence, the choice of imprisonment), Article 154 Subparag. 2 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of driving without a license, the selection of fines)

B. Defendant B: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of special larceny), Articles 262, 260(1), 257(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing violence, the choice of imprisonment), Article 329 of the Criminal Act (the point of larceny and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

B. Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant A: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of each Criminal Code (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel's arguments

The Defendants asserted that there was lack of the ability or decision-making capacity to discern drinking things at the time of committing the instant special larceny and bodily injury. However, in light of various circumstances, such as the background of the crime committed by the records of this case, the Defendants’ act committed before and after the crime, and the degree of memory of the Defendants, etc., the Defendants do not seem to have lacking the ability or decision-making capacity to discern things under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime. Accordingly, the aforementioned assertion is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Application of the sentencing criteria;

(1) Special larceny

[Determination of Punishment] thief for thief on general property

[Special Convictd Persons] Reductions: Non-Mitigation of Punishment

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of six months to one year

2) The crime of causing violence

[Determination of Punishment] Injury by Violence

【Special Edifications] Reductions: Minor Bodily Injury, Non-Punishments

【Decision on the Recommendation Area】 Special mitigation Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from one month to six months

3) The sentencing criteria for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) are not set.

4) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes (special larceny and bodily injury resulting from assault) shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 6 months and not more than 2 years (in addition to 1/2 of the upper limit of the sentence of special larceny in the upper limit of the sentence of the bodily injury resulting from assault that is a basic crime, the lower limit shall be set at the lower limit of the sentence of special larceny)

(b) Determination of sentence;

The defendant, under the so-called so-called ‘Wilthy' law, flaged the victim's bank, and caused the victim to be faced with his wife in the process, and driving Baba with no license. The crime committed on the same day is not only a property damage but also a crime with a high risk of physical damage.

However, the defendant reflects his mistake, and there is no record of criminal punishment other than fines twice. The defendant agreed that the defendant was guilty with the victim. In addition, in consideration of the age, character and conduct of the defendant, various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, the punishment shall be determined

2. Defendant B

(a) Application of the sentencing criteria;

(1) Special larceny

[Determination of Punishment] thief for thief on general property

[Special Convictd Persons] Reductions: Non-Mitigation of Punishment

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of six months to one year

2) The crime of causing violence

[Determination of Punishment] Injury by Violence

【Special Edifications] Reductions: Minor Bodily Injury, Non-Punishments

【Decision on the Recommendation Area】 Special mitigation Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from one month to six months

3) Theft

[Determination of thief] General thief on general property

[Special Convictd Persons] Reductions: Non-Mitigation of Punishment

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of April to 10 months

4) Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months and not more than two years and three months (one-2/3 of the upper limit of the punishment for special larceny and one-third of the upper limit of the punishment for special larceny shall be added to the upper limit of the punishment for the crime of assault or bodily injury which is a basic crime, but the lower limit shall be the lower limit of the punishment for special larceny).

(b) Determination of sentence;

The defendant, under the so-called ‘Welver' law, flaged the victim's bags, got the victim's wife in the process, got the victim's wife in the process, and let the other victim get out of the room. Such a crime was committed not only with property damage, but also with a high risk of physical damage. The defendant committed larceny two times in a similar way using the Batoba while her death.

However, the defendant reflects his mistake. There is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant. The defendant agreed with the victims. In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, etc. shall be determined as ordered in consideration of various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case.

Judges Park So-young

Judges, Senior Superintendent-General