[Criminal Power] On February 2, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Seoul Central District Court. On July 15, 2010, 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 May 10, 2013, the Defendant had the same criminal record nine times more.

【Criminal Facts】

At around 20:00 on December 19, 2013, the Defendant: (a) stolen the victim’s cash amounting to KRW 1,010,00,00; (b) credit card 2; (c) credit card 1; (d) resident registration certificate ; (d) one resident registration certificate ; and (e) one wall 300,000, with a market price equivalent to KRW 50,000,00, using the gap in the three large rooms in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government 846, which is located in the third floor of the third floor; and (e) one set of KRW 1,010,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The Yeongdeungpo-gu video CDs, C video CDs, and each closure photograph;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, inquiry into investigation records, and investigation reports (Confirmation during the period of repeated crimes of suspects);

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the records of each crime, the frequency of crimes, the frequency of crimes, and the repeated crimes of the same kind in the judgment;

1. Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the same Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of limited imprisonment;

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

1. The Defendant asserts that there was a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness such as depression at the time of committing the instant crime, etc., as to the assertion of the Defendant and his/her defense counsel regarding discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the grounds for sentencing).

According to the mental sentiment against the defendant, it is recognized that the defendant has mixed personality, uneasiness and depression disorder.

However, this shall not apply.