[2017 Highest 4160]

1. On September 20, 2017, around 15:37, 2017, the Defendant: (a) intruded into a structure; (b) garments E in Daejeon E apartment Dong operated by the victim C; (c) invaded into the store through the entrance opened for the purpose of theft of other property in the cresh of the cresh; and (d) stolen KRW 150,000,000, the market price of the victim, who was on the pashter, was 3,000,000, in cash located therein.

2. On September 15, 2017, at around 21:20, the Defendant: (a) discovered a H car owned by the victim G while parked in front of the Seo-gu Daejeon Special Metropolitan City F Building without correcting the vehicle door; (b) opened a door to the said car and opened a door to the victim’s seat; and (c) stolen the said car with one smart key equivalent to KRW 75,900 in the market price owned by the victim at the said location, from that time until October 16, 2017, the Defendant stolen the property worth KRW 9,189,900 in total on 11 occasions, as indicated in the list of crimes, from that time.

[2017 Highest 4575] On September 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft with one traditional loan worth KRW 200,000,000 in the middle-ro, Seo-gu, Daejeon District of Home Plus, and the front outdoor store, “The Home Plus Daejeon District of Home Plus; (b) the victim I corrected the tent and entered the tent by using the crepan; and (c) the victim I stolen with one traditional loan worth KRW 200,000,000 in the market price.

Summary of Evidence

[2017 Highest 4160]

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement of J, G, C,K, L, M,O, P, Q, and R;

1. Each investigation report (2017 senior order 4575);

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the I;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, for the crime;

1. Reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 (1) 2, the proviso of Article 50, and the proviso of Article 42 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes: The fact that there has been a previous offense for which four times have been punished due to the same kind of crime, and that there is a favorable circumstance that is contrary to the point that the punishment