beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal history] On May 27, 2015, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny from the Suwon method, and on October 13, 2016, Defendant A completed the execution of the sentence.
[2] In order to raise entertainment expenses, etc. between friendships, the Defendants conspiredd with Defendant A to steal the things in a restaurant, etc., and Defendant B, driving a siren, thereby leaving the above A to the place of crime and leaving it to the place of crime, thereby thefting property.
1. Joint crimes committed by the Defendants
A. Special larceny 1) On October 27, 2016, the Defendants jointly carried out a 'F operated by the victim E in Daejeon Pungdong-gu, Daejeon, on October 27, 2016, Defendant B driven a G stringe car and carried the Defendant A in front of the said restaurant. Defendant A, upon completion of the business, destroyed the crime prevention window of the said restaurant by hand and invaded it through the window, stolen with LGG G4 mobile phone equivalent to KRW 900,000 at the market price owned by the victim in the Kamere-gu.
2) On November 7, 2016, at around 02:30 on November 7, 2016, the Defendants jointly carried boomed at the “J” restaurant operated by the victim I in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, using the gap in which the victim was negligent in surveillance by the booming supervisor, Defendant B reported the network, Defendant A entered the above restaurant as the victim’s clinic, and Defendant A cut off 120,000 won at the market price, which includes 30,000 won in cash owned by the victim.
B. From October 29, 2016, at around 03:40 on October 29, 2016, the Defendants jointly carried a 'M’ restaurant operated by the victim L L in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Defendant B driven NK5 sirens, and left Defendant A in front of the above restaurant, and opened the network. Defendant A did not discover the property to be stolen after having intruded into the main window of the above restaurant, but did not discover it.
2. Defendant A.