Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who naturalization from Mongolian nationality on March 2015 to Korea, and Defendant B is a foreigner of Mongolian nationality.

From May 3, 2019 to 14:50 on May 3, 2019, Defendants conspired with foreigners of Mongolian nationality (small C, C, and C). From around 10:30 on May 3, 2019 to 14:50 on the same day, the Defendants placed the F Articles in G K5 vehicles owned by Defendant A, which were parked in the vicinity of the store, by inserting the gap in the management of victims, etc. by mixing customers in the store and making use of the gap in which the management of victims, etc. was neglected.

As a result, the defendants stolen the victim's property together with the person who was not the victim of the name.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure records and list of seizure;

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 the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [Determination of types] thief for general property [Class 1] thief [special stief] - mitigated elements: Reduction area of punishment [the scope of the recommended area and the recommended punishment], reduction area of punishment, imprisonment for one month through six months [the scope of the recommended punishment as modified according to the sentencing guidelines] 6 months of imprisonment (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 therefore the applicable sentencing range in law is inconsistent with the minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range);

2. Although the nature of the crime in this case’s sentencing decision is not good, the above punishment shall be determined within the scope of discretionary mitigation, taking into account the fact that the Defendants confession and reflect, the victim does not want the punishment against the Defendants, and the absence of any special criminal power.