On April 2, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims (special robbery, rape, etc.) at the Seoul High Court on April 2, 200, and completed the execution of the sentence on January 17, 2015.

On December 31, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at D fishing places located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si; (b) at D fishing places located in the Namyang-si; (c) the victim E, with eight fishing markets in an amount of KRW 2,00,000, the market price of which is owned by the victim E; and (d) used the cresh of a diving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement concerning F in the protocol of suspect interrogation of the police officer;

1. Statement of E;

1. On-site photographs, screen pictures of each CCTV-fashion, list of seizure and evidence of seizure, descriptions of seized objects, and images;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes stated in a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (verification of suspect A's history of repeated crime);

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 329 of the choice of punishment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of punishment by law] 12 years or less of imprisonment [the scope of punishment by law] / [the scope of recommendation] basic area of larceny in the category of general property among the larceny crime group / [the scope of punishment by general larceny] : From June to June, 1 year and six months [where significant damage has been recovered: Aggravation factors: Imprisonment with prison labor for this type of repeated crime (decision of sentence], which does not fall under the aggravation of specific crimes (decision of punishment), the defendant has the ability to be punished for the same crime, and the defendant has already committed the larceny of this case within the period of repeated crime.

Therefore, in consideration of the fact that the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, that the defendant is against the confession of the crime, that most stolen goods are recovered, etc., the sentence period is set within the range of sentence recommended according to the sentencing guidelines.