[Criminal Power] On July 21, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court on July 21, 201. On May 19, 2012, the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence in the first prison for the North

【Criminal Facts】

On August 27, 2014, from around 00:08 to 00:40 on the same day, the Defendant opened a studio 101 of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, which was the husband of the said D, and intruded into the living room, and cut off the cash owned by the victim E, the husband of the said D, with one resident registration certificate, one driver's license, one copy of Samsung Credit Card, one copy of Hyundai Credit Card, one of Hyundai Credit Card, one of Samsung Point Card, one of the Samsung Point Card, one of the market price of KRW 50,00,00, and one of the two keyss, the victim D's market price of KRW 950,00,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Written statements of D;

1. Reports and investigation reports (as of August 27, 2014), investigation reports (as of the place of occurrence, investigation into the other party of the chain store, etc.);

1. Police seizure records;

1. A request for appraisal, reply and written appraisal;

1. A written confirmation of details of card use;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records, personal identification and current status of confinement;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders [Scope of Recommendation] The sentence against the defendant is inevitable in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period even though he was punished several times for the same crime even though he was punished several times for the same crime.

However, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for a year lower than the lower limit of the recommended sentence, considering that the defendant is a Grade 6 disability and needs continuous medical treatment due to cerebral typhism and aftermathy damage within the two parts.