beta
Text
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, as to the Defendants, it is for two years from the date of the final judgment.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendants returned to the Bank of Korea in order to abolish the car between husband and wife, while operating Cone Star Co., Ltd., and, on February 15, 2020, around 12:00, the victim E (the age of 51) was set up in D in front of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, for the purpose of directors, one gold half of the market price of the victim’s ownership, which is equivalent to KRW 520,00,00,000, the market price of the victim’s 120,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00).
As a result, the defendants stolen the victim's property together.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendants’ respective legal statements
1. E statements;
1. Application of each photograph, CCTV CD, and Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting (to hear the statements by the victim's telephone);
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;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;
1. Scope of punishment by law: Six months to five years of imprisonment;
2. The scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of types]; thief for general property] and there is no general larceny [type 2] (the scope of recommending area and recommending punishment] (the scope of recommending punishment]; and 6 months through one year and six months;
3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and suspended execution for two years; the crime of this case committed by the Defendants, while collecting the goods of others, was stolen by citing booms that contain the goods of others.
In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, there is no possibility that the defendants might mistake the damaged goods as the neglected or lost goods.