Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, it is against the Defendants for two years from the date the judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendants and D are inter-friendly with each other, and Defendant B is an urban bus driver.

On March 20, 2018, Defendants and D came to gather three Oral Ba, which was set up on the way that Defendant B had been operating the Pyeongtaek city bus on March 20, 2018, by loading three Oral Bas on the E-wing class 3 truck driven by Defendant A and dividing them by one of the following.

Accordingly, the Defendants and D moved to Daejeon, with their respective boarding on the instant truck driven by Defendant A. On March 21, 2018, around 01:42, at the front of the Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, the victim H, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 2200,000,000,000 at the victim H, which was set up in front of the “G” restaurant located in Seo-gu, Daejeon. On the same day, at around 02:30, the Defendants and D moved to the said truck, and followed the said truck, having been loaded in the front line of the “J” located in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 500,00,000,000, no number is equivalent to KRW 500,000,000.

As a result, the Defendants and D stolen the victims' property jointly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the Defendants and D

1. Each statement of H and K;

1. The photograph of each stolen earth and sand;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of each crime scene;

1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. When considering the reasoning for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, considering the fact that the nature of the crime of this case is not good in light of the number and content of the crime of this case, the Defendants’ liability for the crime of this case was grave, but all of the damaged items were returned, the Defendants agreed with one of the victims, the Defendants were led to confession, and the Defendants were against themselves, and the Defendants did not have the same criminal record, the punishment as the order shall be determined together.