On September 23, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and six months with prison labor for larceny in the Military Court of Second Instance of the Army, and was sentenced to two years with prison labor for habitual larceny in the Daegu District Court’s Branch Branch Branch on August 13, 2015, and on August 22, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years with prison labor for larceny at the Cheongju District Court on August 22, 2016, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Cheongju Prison on May 5, 2018.

On June 30, 2018, around 22:30, the Defendant stolen one cell phone charging machine equivalent to 15,900 won in the market price owned by the victim E (Nam, 54 years old) who was placed in the display stand at the location, by inserting it in a bank in which the Defendant was placed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (pre-guilty criminal records A, attachment of court rulings and confirmation of details of guard records);

1. Article 5-4 (5) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for two to twenty years;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [Determination of types] Scope of the larceny [Type 1] under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes [No person who is a special offender] / [the scope of the recommended punishment and the scope of the recommended punishment] basic area, imprisonment for a year and six months to three years [the scope of the recommended punishment as modified according to the applicable sentencing] 2 to three years (the lowest limit of the sentencing range recommended in the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory minimum limit of the applicable sentencing range, and thus the minimum of the applicable sentencing range in the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory minimum of the applicable sentencing range] [the general person - the mitigated factor] / the mitigated factor: there is no minor damage [the grounds for suspension of execution]

3. Determination of sentence: the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of six times in total for larceny, and the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime resulting from the final punishment, even though he had the record of having been sentenced to imprisonment, and the responsibility for the instant crime is heavy.