Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, the defendants are above two years from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

From around 15:00 on May 13, 2019 to around 16:30 on the same day, the Defendants kept the victim F on the victim F on his/her back-to-door in the “E” test room located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and had 2,300,000 won of the victim’s market price and 550,000 won of the victim’s clody male clody, and one name, name, non-flody number, 1,00,000 won of the market price, and one resident registration certificate, 10,000 and 10,000 won of the vehicle sales, and 2,000 won of the cash.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to the witness C of the F’s legal statement to the defendant A of some of the witness C, the protocol of seizure (voluntary submission), the list of seizure, the on-site photographs of seized articles, and the photograph of damaged articles to the prosecution concerning the defendant A of the protocol of

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

1. Defendants in the suspension of execution: The Defendants in the community service order under Article 62(1) of each Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “the favorable circumstances for the reasons for sentencing”): The Defendants in the judgment on the assertion of the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 62-2 of each Criminal Act, and the Defendants in the judgment of the Defendants in the judgment of the Defendants in the judgment of the Defendant regarding the allegation of the Defendants and their defense counsel.

Defendant B did not have any unlawful acquisition intent since it correspond to Defendant B, and the remaining articles in the judgment did not constitute theft. Defendant B did not have any criminal intent or unlawful acquisition of theft, with the purport that “Defendant A was aware that he left with a clater of the victim’s clater at a coffee shop, and only left it to the lost material center in accordance with Defendant A’s instructions.” Defendant C did not have any criminal act of larceny with the remaining Defendants, nor did he shared any criminal act of larceny or any unlawful acquisition.