However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for one year.

Defendant

A registered under the name of the principal, but actually brought the E-highest car owned and operated by the victim D at will, and requested Defendant B to help it.

Defendant

B, around October 29, 2013, it was found that the said car was parked on the street in front of the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and then notified the Defendant A of this fact. On October 30, 2013, the Defendants confirmed on October 30, 2013 that the said car was set off at the said place.

Accordingly, the Defendants, through an insurance company, committed a theft by carrying a car above the H industry company's Haak-gu Haak-gu Haak-gu Haakk-gu Ga with the car market price of 37 million won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the first trial record

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor in the suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Partial statement of a witness I;

1. Statement made by witnesses D in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Each police statement made to D or I;

1. Each investigation report (Submission of documents claiming D's actual ownership, submission of a copy of acquisition tax receipt, register of automobiles, payment certificate of installments, litigation documents, etc., monetary report by the person in charge of Kim View-si related to automobile tax, detailed circumstance and data of damage amount to KRW 37 million, details-certified mail sent by victim D to A, and review of cases);

1. Application form for the data processing of waterway vehicles, data on stolen vehicle taxes, and driver's licenses of B and A;

1. Application of the register of automobiles and the laws and subordinate statutes on the unpaid details of modern Capital;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The defendants on probation: The defendants and their defense counsel's arguments under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the grounds for sentencing") are more favorable.