Defendant

A Imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and Defendant V imprisonment of 1 year, respectively.

The application for compensation of this case is dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

On February 21, 2013, A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Busan District Court on May 22, 2013 and completed the execution of the sentence.

The Defendants of the 2015 Highest 1452, supra, are expected to return a mobile phone on November 2014, 2014 on the condition that a person suffering from another person’s mobile phone at a soup brying site, where the contact from the victim is off, and the contact is paid if he/she was off, while he/she was living in a de facto de facto marital relationship, before and from May 2015, and he/she was living in a de facto marital relationship.

The purpose of this paper is to acquire money through fraud.

1. From July 1, 2015 to August 20, 2015, the Defendants committed joint crimes (special larceny) by the Defendants: (a) at the 8th floor of the Z in Busan Suwon-gu around 09:0; (b) Defendant A discovered the victim A, who was divingd adjacent to the mobile phone, so that he stolen the above mobile phone to Defendant V; (c) reported the network in the surrounding areas; and (d) Defendant V, after approaching the victim, took one G3 smartphone of KRW 30,000,000 at the market price of the victim, from around the above day to August 20, 2015, stolen the victims’ property at the total market price of approximately KRW 685,00,000 in total over 10 times, such as the list of crimes in attached Form 1 (1).

Accordingly, the defendants stolen the victims' property in a total of 10 times together.

2. Joint crimes committed by the Defendants

A. The Defendants, at around 08:00 on July 3, 2015, received a phone call from the victim AD owner, who was stolen under the circumstances described in the attached Table Nos. 2 and 3, from the victim AD owner on July 3, 2015, he/she would return the mobile phone when he/she deposited money to the victim.

A false statement was made.

However, the Defendants did not have the intention or ability to return the cell phone even if they receive the money from the injured party due to concerns about the arrest of the injured party due to the loss of the injured party.

Ultimately, the Defendants conspired with each other in such a manner as above.