1. On September 4, 2016, at around 22:00 on September 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the Victim D D’s Karen vehicle’s market price of KRW 170,000, 170,000 in front of the Incheon Yeonsu-gu cafeteria; and (b) damaged the Defendant’s property by using the Raber.

2. The Defendant: (a) entered the above victim’s vehicle at the above date, time, and place; and (b) Handbags with the victim’s cash amounting to KRW 23,000, and smartphones with the market price of KRW 500,000; and (c) stolen them.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of thief products and photographs damaged by property;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment against the crime, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes / [the scope of recommending punishment] [the grounds for sentencing under Article 38(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes / [the scope of recommending punishment] No person who does not have a basic area (from June to one year and six months) [the person who is subject to special sentencing] [the decision of sentencing] is contrary to the defendant and the fact that the defendant recognizes a crime

However, even though the defendant had had a record of criminal punishment over several times for the same crime, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant to a sentence because the crime is not committed in light of the criminal law.

Therefore, the punishment is determined as ordered.