Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. Where anyone who violates the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act intends to enter military bases and installations in military protection zones, he/she shall obtain permission from the commander of the jurisdictional unit, etc.

On March 8, 2014, at around 09:0, the Defendants entered the gold-wave fire brigade shooting range managed by the 7296 unit of the Army in the Pacific, the military base on which the entry control marks are installed along with D and E without any justifiable permission.

2. On March 8, 2014, at around 09:00 on March 8, 2014, the Defendants, as indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1), entered a gold-wave military firearms shooting range with D and E in one place with a view to thefting the incombustible coal and tear, etc. located in a shooting range, and collected them from the stude, etc.

The Defendants, at around 13:45 on the same day, stolen the parts of the 40-meter practice coal, 5, 81m high breadth ombs, etc. in a bank prepared in advance by Defendant B, at around 13:45 on the same day.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly stolen the property owned by the victim of the Republic of Korea.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement D and E in the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution against A;

1. Application of the police protocol of statement to F;

1. Article 24 (6) 1, Article 9 (1) 1 (b) of the Protection of Military Bases and Installations Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 331 (2) and Article 331 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of each Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment prescribed for special larceny with heavier punishment) among concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( normal consideration in favor of the Defendants among the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution (hereinafter the following sentencing grounds), which is favorable to the Defendants, is 1.