Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 18, 2014, around 18:16, 2014, at the Hyundai Department Store D'E's 1st underground department store located in Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, 257, the Defendants demanded that they have a new product packed to employees F, by pretending customers, and Defendant A, who is fright to the above F's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f'

Accordingly, the defendants stolen two clothes equivalent to KRW 500,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A written statement of the G production;

1. Photographss of damaged articles, CCTV image data-faging photographs, CCTV evidence video data CDs;

1. Application of investigation reports (on-site CCTV investigations)-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for a suspended sentence (the following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of each criminal law of the community service order and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. / [the scope of recommending punishment] There is no basic area (6 to 1.6 months) of the theft against general property (general larceny) / [decision of sentence] The nature of the crime is not good in light of the applicable law and content of the crime in this case. However, the defendants are in opposition to the confession of the crime in this case. Defendant A has no criminal records of the same kind and suspension of execution or more, Defendant B has no criminal records of the same kind and suspension of execution or more, Defendant B has the primary crime, damage was recovered and substantial damage was not significant, and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments in this case including the age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc.