[Criminal record] On December 26, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months at the Gwangju District Court for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and completed the execution of the sentence on May 11, 2015.

[2] On September 21, 2015, at around 05:00, the Defendant: (a) opened a toilet screen on the part of the victim D’s operation in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu; (b) went into the cosmetic and stolen cash owned by the said victim; and (c) committed a theft of the victim’s property on 12 occasions in total by the following methods: (a) up to December 1, 2015: (b) the sum of cash owned by the victims eight times in total; (c) KRW 871,600; and (d) the total amount of cash owned by the victims at KRW 19,000; and (d) attempted to steal the victims’ property on 12 occasions in total.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually intruded the structure of the victims' management at night, thereby thefting or attempted property owned by the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police on the police;

1. Each statement;

1. All on-site and CCTV photographs;

1. A previous conviction in judgment: A written inquiry, a personal inquiry, the number and acceptance status, and a written judgment;

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the records of each crime, the number of crimes, the frequency of crimes, and the fact that the same kind of crime has been committed in a planned and organized manner;

1. Articles 332 and 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes is that E, F, G, H, I, J, and K does not want to be punished by the defendant among the victims, but the rest victims are punished by the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant again commits the crime of this case in spite of the criminal record of the same kind of crime as the stated in the judgment, and commits larceny by damaging a structure at night, the crime of this case is poor in light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case, and that the thief committed the theft by damaging the structure at night.