On December 22, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. in the Daejeon District Court, and on July 5, 2017, the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence in the Daejeon District Court's branch of the Daejeon Prison.

On August 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the time of Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon Daejeon Terminal No. 1689, on August 23:40, 2017, the Defendant stolen the Defendant by leaving the store, without being putting in a bank account of an amount equivalent to KRW 13,80,000, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 9,980, and KRW 6,900, 12,900, 12,900, 12,300, 29,000, the market price of which is equivalent to KRW 29,780.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Reporting on the arrest of the case;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. Investigation report (investigation into victim D phone);

1. A criminal investigation report (fixtures of damaged articles and receipts), - photographs of damaged articles, and photographs of receipts;

1. Investigation report (Analysis of the collection ofCCTV images and visit to witness C, etc.);

1. Investigation reports (related to damaged articles);

1. 112 A list of reported cases;

1. CCTV video CDs;

1. A photograph of damaged objects and a CCTV-cape photograph;

1. Previous convictions: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on investigation (A), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the same kind and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 329 of the choice of punishment;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes is that the Defendant committed the crime of this case from the investigative agency to this court, despite evident evidence, that the Defendant is not in opposition to the denial of the crime of this case from this court to this court, that the Defendant is consistent with the defense that the Defendant cannot obtain at all in this court, and that the Defendant committed the crime of this case, which is the same kind of crime, since two months have not passed since the end of the punishment without being aware of the existence of the period of repeated crime due to larceny,