Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 03:00 on June 16, 2014, the Defendants reported the victim E operation F, Defendant B, and Defendant A, the victim-owned Doctrine (5,000 won at the market price) located in the line set up in the front of the said F store, and stolen the victim-owned Doctrine (5,000 won at the market price) jointly and jointly.

2. At around 03:40 on June 16, 2014, the Defendants: (a) at the I mobile phone sales store operated by the victim H in Ansan-si G, Ansan-si; (b) at the point of view of Defendant B’s network, Defendant A destroyed the entrance door glass door, as set forth in paragraph (1); and (c) invaded into the store with 13 mobile phones owned by the victim (total market price of KRW 7,866,100) displayed at the display site, and stolen them together.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol against J;

1. Each police statement of the H, K, L, E, M, and N;

1. A written statement of theO;

1. Records of each seizure, and photographs of each seized article;

1. Investigation report (specific details of the damaged goods);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs, CCTV editing materials, and CCTV materials containing the suspect appearance at the time of committing the crime;

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

1. Defendants who are subject to aggravated concurrent crimes: former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act provides that the damage under paragraph (1) is insignificant and the damage under paragraph (2) is recovered, and the victim does not want to punish the Defendants; the crime of this case does not appear to have been committed systematically in accordance with the strict plan; Defendant A is the initial offender; Defendant B was not a criminal record other than the criminal record of this case; Defendant B was also detained near two months due to the crime of this case; and considering

1. Defendants subject to suspended execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Discretionaryly considering extenuating circumstances in discretionary mitigation);

1. Probation;