Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 15, 2019, at around 19:20, the Defendants reported the network before Defendant B’s “D cafeteria” located on the second floor of the Yansan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and Defendant A had one cellular phone owned by the victim E (in gallon, S9 and market value of KRW 1 million) located on the chair located therein.

As a result, the defendants stolen the victim's property together.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. E statements;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs and damaged photographs following the closure of field CCTVs;

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

1. Defendants on probation: Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Six to five years of imprisonment;

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types] thief for general property [type 1] thief [the scope of the recommended punishment] and no person [the scope of the recommended punishment] thief [the scope of the recommended punishment and the range of the recommended punishment] basic area, four to eight months [the scope of the recommended punishment corrected according to the applicable sentencing] sentenced to six months to eight months (the lowest limit of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range, and the applicable sentencing range is set according to the statutory minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range).

3. Determination of sentence: Although the Defendants had been sentenced to suspension of indictment for the same type of joint larceny over two occasions, they cannot be deemed to have committed the instant crime in a more unfavorable condition, and damage is not likely to have been serious. Considering the fact that the Defendants returned the damaged items, etc. in favorable circumstances, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, motive and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime (including reflective attitude) shall be also considered and sentenced as ordered by the disposition.