2. However, it is against the Defendants for three years from the day when this judgment became final and conclusive.

피고인들은, 피고인 B이 망을 보다가 주변에 사람이 오면 입으로 ‘ 똑딱’ 이라는 소리를 내기로 하고, 피고인 B이 망을 보는 사이에 피고인 A은 주차되어 있는 차량 내의 재물을 절취하기로 공모하였다.

On April 24, 2015, the Defendants: (a) viewed Defendant B’s network on the street in front of Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, 02:33; (b) as between Defendant B’s view, Defendant A attempted to commit a theft of property in a vehicle by taking the driver’s seat of the victim E, parked in the relevant place, but the vehicle’s door was not locked.

As a result, the Defendants jointly attempted to steal the property owned by the victim, but did not commit any attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by cutting a CCTV course and capturing a message;

1. Articles 342, 331 (2) and 331 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for the suspension of execution;

1. Protection and observation, reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of each community service order - Not applying sentencing guidelines to exemplary offenses - All the defendants are in reflectivity, the circumstances in which the crimes are committed, and the circumstances in which the crimes are committed are committed: Defendant A is subject to juvenile protective disposition of the same kind of juvenile protective disposition and suspension of indictment, and Defendant B is subject to a fine for this kind of crime - Other conditions of sentencing specified in the records of this case, such as the age, sex, state of health, home environment, motive, means, results, etc. of the crimes.