beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, for seven months, for seven months, and for six months, for Defendant C.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
A knew that the management of the nearby field of the construction site where food delivery was carried out by Defendant B and C was neglected, A, with the knowledge that the management of the field of the construction site was stolen, and the Defendant B and C received the above proposals.
On September 2, 2013, from around 23:00 to September 00, 2013, the following day from September 3, 2013, the Defendants came to the “F” field of the Victim E’s Operation in Sinung-si, and parked in the air gate near the said field of poland by driving the potob, and Defendant A contained in the paper stuff that was prepared in advance in accordance with the pomido, Defendant C set up it on the ground floor according to the pomido, and Defendant B set up 10 km on the ground floor by inserting the poto 7 g of the potobs, and then dividing the above 7 g of the potobs in the potobs where each was loaded.
Accordingly, the Defendants, together, stolen the amount of 1.2 million won at the market price of 70 kmg- owned by the victim E.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendants’ respective legal statements
1. Statement to E by the police;
1. Photographs of damaged articles;
1. Application of statutes to inquiries and inquiries, such as each criminal record;
1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts;
1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (including the fact that the amount of damage is relatively large and the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendants)
1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (Article 62(1)(Article 62(1)(Article 62(1)(Article 62(1))(Article 62(1)(Article 62(1)) of the Criminal Act provides that there is no criminal record of a stay of execution or more; Defendant B and C are causing criminal conduct by Defendant A’s proposal; Defendant B
1. Social service businesses under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;