Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 27, 2017, around 22:40, the Defendants used “E” restaurant located in Busan Northern-gu, Busan, and Defendant A, taking advantage of the gap where the victim F’s supervision was neglected, using the gap where the victim F’s supervision was located, Defendant A used one wall with cash of KRW 57,000, and one stopper with one cellular phone at Samsung Ggal ju, which is the victim’s possession, and Defendant B carried out the fluor.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. A written statement;

1. Each investigation report and each protocol of seizure;

1. Application of CCTV photographs and CCTV CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Small-scale mitigated Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the community service order: Determination as to the assertion of Defendant A and his defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant B gave the victim’s pointer to Defendant B was to bring the victim’s pointer back to Defendant B, and thus, Defendant B did not cut the above pointer in collaboration with Defendant B.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, Defendant A and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable, since Defendant A and the defense counsel were jointly and severally admitted with Defendant B to have stolen the victim’s spread and wallets, etc. which were contained therein.

A. Defendant A saw the victim’s gateer who was seated on the left side of his own seat to smoke tobacco at the time and place of the facts constituting the crime, and saw the victim’s gate out of the restaurant with the victim’s gate. However, the victim’s gateer knew that he was not his gateer, and saw the victim’s gateer out of the restaurant.