Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 4, 2019, around 03:34, the Defendants came to the “F” operated by the victim E on the D1st floor located in Speaker-si C, and Defendant B reported the network earlier, and Defendant A left the box with approximately 7,000 won at the market price owned by the victim at the entrance of the car page.

As a result, the defendants stolen the victim's property together.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. E statements;

1. Reports on internal investigation (related to statements made by victims);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to data on CCTV image analysis at generated places;

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: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of probation and community service order: Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of punishment by law: Six months to five years;

2. Scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of punishment] general larceny [the category 2] general larceny [the scope of recommending punishment and recommending punishment]: Reduction area of punishment [the scope of recommending punishment], reduction area of punishment, four months to ten months [the scope of recommending punishment revised according to the sentencing guidelines], six months to ten months (the minimum of sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory minimum of applicable sentencing range, and the minimum of applicable punishment shall be set according to the law).

3. Determination of sentence: In addition, even though the two-year Defendants, who were sentenced to a stay of execution for the eight-month period of imprisonment with prison labor, committed larceny, and were sentenced to a stay of execution for the six-month period of imprisonment with prison labor for each special larceny on September 28, 2017, the Defendants committed the instant crime without being aware of the said stay of execution period and committed the instant crime jointly (the date the judgment was sentenced to a stay of execution as of the date of the judgment). Furthermore, the said special larceny crime was committed under the same law as the instant case, Defendant B reported the network, and Defendant A had the goods.