Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. On September 2, 2012, at around 02:26, the Defendants: (a) enter the “F” convenience store managed by the victim E in Young-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City; and (b) entices the victim to find a ice cream from the cooling house outside the convenience store installed outside the convenience store; and (c) G used the gap between the victim’s outer convenience store and carried one million won in cash, which was kept in the Kabter’s depository.

As a result, the Defendants stolen the other party's property together with G.

2. Defendant B, around 03:00 on August 26, 2012, along with the “J” convenience store managed by the victim I on the H1st floor in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul. The Defendant induced the victim to find a ice cream at the cooling house outside the convenience store installed outside the convenience store, and G had 240,000 won in cash, which the victim had been kept in the convenience store outside the convenience store.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen another's property together with G.

Summary of Evidence

1. The statements by the Defendants in the first trial record

1. Application of the respective Acts and subordinate statutes of G, I and E;

1. Article 332 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 (Defendant B);

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The sentencing reasons under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution include: (a) there is no particular criminal records against the Defendants; (b) Defendant B’s recovery of damages and thus the victims are not punished; (c) Defendant A’s leading of a crime is difficult to be considered in the case of Defendant A; and (d) the Defendants are still against the age of her age and recognize the facts of the crime as indicated in the judgment.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.