Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, each of the Defendants is against the Defendants for two years from the date of the final judgment of this case.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendants conspired to steal and sell mobile phone devices in order to raise money such as the settlement of card payments.

1. On May 23, 2013, at around 03:10, the Defendants jointly carried the victim F mobile phone apparatus displayed in the store located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (No. 105 E mobile phone store), and laid down bricks in the relevant place to steals the mobile phone apparatus owned by the victim F, which was displayed in the store, and did not go against the intent that they did not go against the glass.

2. At around 04:30 of the same day, the Defendants jointly left the 1st floor H mobile phone agency located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Yeonsu-gu, the first floor of the H mobile phone agency, leaving the brick as above, and broken down the glass window.

Defendant

A sees the network, Defendant B, who attempted to steals the victim I's cell phone device, but he did not commit an attempted crime, even though he tried to steals the victim I's cell phone device.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements made to F and I;

1. Articles 342 and 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigations under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( normal consideration in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing below);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following factors for sentencing have been repeatedly taken into consideration for the defendant);

1. According to the method and method of sentencing under Article 62-2(1) and the main sentence of Article 62-2(2) of the Social Service Order Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc., the nature of the crime of this case is inferior, but the defendants recognized their mistakes and reflects them, each crime was committed against attempted attempts, and there was no agreement with the victim I, each of the same kind of crime did not have any record of punishment, and there was no record of punishment heavier than the fine, and all of the other conditions of sentencing, such as the defendants' age, character and behavior, family environment.