At around 03:32, Jan. 28, 2020, the Defendant: (a) opened a string door of the victim D’s Eata car parked in B; and (b) stolen the Defendant’s property worth KRW 4,568,000,00 in total on 12 occasions from September 13, 2018 to March 2, 2020, with a view to a cash of KRW 50,000 in the container, and a back seat of KRW 30,000 in the market price in the container.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Each statement of D, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, and P;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to CCTV screen, investigation report (related to fingerprinting), internal investigation report (related to Q apartment, RTV CCTV verification), internal investigation report (STV image verification), internal investigation report (in the field and the victim's counter investigation, CCTV investigation), internal investigation report (in the field and the victim's counter investigation), internal investigation report (in the field), investigation report (in the presence of the victim and the victim's counter investigation and CCTV verification), investigation report (in the presence of the victim's telephone conversation), investigation report (in the

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that aggravated concurrent crimes have been repeatedly committed and the Defendant had been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor on several occasions. However, the Defendant committed larceny repeatedly over a prolonged period.

The victims are several, and in most cases, the victims did not return the damaged goods or compensate for the damage.

Therefore, the sentence of sentence against the defendant is inevitable.

On the other hand, all of the defendants recognize crimes.

The scale of damage caused by theft is not significant as a substitute.

The defendant seems to have committed a crime to maintain his/her livelihood.

The age of the accused is still the age of the accused.

The above circumstances, such as character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.