[criminal history] On July 5, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 months in Seoul Eastern District Court on August 5, 2004, and was sentenced to 6 months in Seoul Eastern District Court for larceny, etc. on April 7, 2006. On October 16, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months in imprisonment with prison labor for night structure intrusion larceny, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court. On September 17, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to 1 year and 2 months in imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the Seoul East District Court, and completed the execution of the said sentence on September 26, 2016.

[2] On January 18, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 02:00, near the “E” restaurant operated by the victim D, located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) opened a cafeteria and opened a gate that was not corrected by the inner warehouse and the main room; and (c) intruded into a cafeteria, and then the victim’s small-scale 1 branch of the non-permanent junc in which the victim owned by the Defendant had the total amount of KRW 20,000 per half of the market price.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A report on the occurrence of a crime, a report on internal investigation (on-site verification, victim and victim internal investigation), a report on internal investigation (the CCTV internal investigation conducted in relation to the suspect's charge), and a report on investigation into a suspect (the CCTV investigation conducted before and after the crime);

1. Previous convictions: A and each written reply to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Habitualness of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the following: The history of each crime, method of crimes, frequency of crimes, and punishment imposed on the judgment; repeated crimes of the same kind are repeated even though the defendant is sentenced; and theft-and-flads or malads are not deemed as essential goods for living;

1. Articles 332 and 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. The circumstances that are disadvantageous to the sentencing of Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes: Habitualness is recognized, and the circumstances that are favorable to repeating the same type of crime during the period of repeated crimes are insignificant in the amount of damage, the victim does not want to punish the defendant, and the age and gender of the defendant are committed.