On August 19, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for at least six months in the Jeonju District Court, Jeonju District Court, Jong-Eup branch, for night building intrusion larceny, and two years in the suspension of execution of six months in prison, and on March 24, 201, in the same court on March 24, 201, for eight months in prison due to special larceny, and on November 15, 201, the Defendant completed the execution of the said sentence in the Jeonju prison on October 6, 2013.

At around 15:00 on July 15, 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft from a panel equivalent to the sum of 50,000 won in total of the market prices of the victim D owned by the Defendant, which was kept in custody at a plastic house under the House C, from around 15:00; (b) from around that time, 30,000 won in total; and (c) committed a theft from around that time.

9. Until December 24, 200, the victims were habitually stolen the total amount of 3,889,000 won in total, as shown in the annexed list of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of M, E, and Q;

1. Each statement in preparation of D, G, H, I, J, K, and L;

1. Each investigation report (109 pages, 132 pages), investigation report (as for the place of committing crimes, etc. on the list of crimes), and investigation report;

1. Each quotation (66 pages, 67 pages of investigation records);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records and other inquiries, and investigation reports (178 pages of investigation records);

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the records of each crime, the frequency of crimes, the frequency of crimes, and the fact that the same kind of crimes are repeated several times in a planned manner;

1. Relevant Article 332 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting a crime;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes is that the defendant both acknowledges and reflects the crime, and the victim E and the victim agreed to do so smoothly. The victim expressed an investigative agency that the defendant does not want to punish the defendant, and the Constitutional Court made a decision of unconstitutionality as to the provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applied to the judgment subject to a retrial.