Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Criminal facts

On January 1, 2013, at around 03:00, the Defendants jointly confirmed that the victim E was in a 1 ton vehicle of G 1 ton, parked at the F shop operated by the victim E, and destroyed the locked by using the iron bars around the Defendant A and the Defendant C, and then the Defendant A sent the stopner in the vehicle to the Defendant B, and the Defendant B received it, and the Defendant C cut off 30 times of the market price at the time of being loaded on the vehicle using the h ton vehicle of the h ton of the h ton.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statement to E;

1. Article 332 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see the following reasons for sentencing) for discretionary mitigation;

1. According to the sentencing guidelines for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the instant crime constitutes general larceny among general property of the larceny group, and the scope of the recommendation is from June to June (basic area).

The Defendants, jointly and severally, stolen the goods of others, and thus, they should be punished for severe punishment due to extremely poor nature of the crime of this case. However, the Defendants led to confession, reflect, deposit the amount equivalent to the amount of damage on behalf of the victims, and have yet to be young young young people, and thus, the execution of imprisonment with prison labor shall be suspended only once because it is determined that it would be reasonable to improve their personality and behavior.