On June 15, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Seoul Central District Court, and on November 12, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced three years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) and completed the execution of the sentence on September 5, 2012.

At around 21:30 on March 26, 2013, the Defendant habitually committed theft by putting the E-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-te-hea in the seat, the victim D who was installed in the place, was located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Summary of Evidence

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made by the police on D;

1. Entry of a record of seizure and the list of seizure (before the date of sale);

1. A statement of inquiry report, such as criminal records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing thefts in light of the following: Each statement on investigation report (report attached to a written judgment), personal identification / acceptance status [Habitualness] stated in the judgment, and repeated criminal records during the short term after release, etc.;

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

1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (including favorable circumstances, etc. deemed to be the following reasons for sentencing)

1. Scope of the recommended sentence for the sentencing guidelines / [type] basic area of the basic area of the larceny crime group, habitual repeated crime, general repeated crime theft (type 1) (type 1] - 2 years; and 4 years;

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant, who was sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime, committed again the instant crime within the period of repeated crime even though he/she had been punished several times, a sentence of sentence against the Defendant is inevitable.

However, the fact that the defendant is against the confession of the crime, and the value of the damaged product is not significant.