However, each of the defendants A and C from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

B and Defendant C are members of the neutism organization, and Defendant C is the ship of Defendant B.

On November 17, 2013, the victim G (the age of 17) cut off one of the Defendant C-owned off at the underground parking lots of Yancheon Village Apartment apartment located in the 40 Doncheon-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City, Seocheon-gu, 1257-gil.

Defendant

C knew of the Kakao Scarto theft to the land managers through the "Kakao Scarto", and the Defendant A found on November 28, 2013 that the victim G was getting on and off the above Orala on the 2013.

1. Defendant C

A. At around 14:50 on November 28, 2013, the Defendant received a phone call from A to the effect that the Defendant was merely similar to the stolen ones from A at an insular area in Seoul and below, and subsequently confirmed that the Defendant followed it.

Accordingly, at around 15:00 on the same day, A discovered the victim G and the victim H (the age of 17) at the 131 parking lot of the Yongsan-gu Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, and contacted A, and the Defendant sent the victims to A until he returned to Daejeon.

Accordingly, A, according to the direction of the defendant, from 15:00 to 17:00 on the same day, had the victims left away from the above apartment parking lot as referred to in paragraph (2).

Since then, the defendant contacted B with the defect that there was a day of A and caused victims to go back to Daejeon. B, according to the direction of the defendant, from 17:00 to 22:30 on the same day, the victims were prevented from getting out to another place as paragraph 3(a) in the apartment parking lot, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant instigated A and B to detain victims.

B. At around 19:30 on the same day, the Defendant forcedd the victims to contact B to receive a written statement recognizing the theft from the victims. B received a written statement from the victims as stated in paragraph 3(b) upon the Defendant’s instruction.

Accordingly, the defendant BA.