On July 1, 2004, the Defendant sentenced seven years and six months to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.) in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on July 1, 2004, and completed the execution of the sentence on October 31, 201.

At around 23:49 on April 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) took away KRW 1 million in cash from the ground wall in which the victim D’s “EMel” was operated by the victim D, deeming that the victim was divingd in a way in which the victim was in place within the said her first floor carper; and (b) went into the above visit by opening the above visit; and (c) taken the victim’s knife at a preparatory knife, and cut down one million won in cash from the ground wall in which the victim’s knife is teared.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Investigation report (specific suspect);

1. Previous records: Application of a reply to inquiries, such as criminal records, investigation reports (A), criminal records, repeated crimes of suspects, judgment, and attachment of evidence of confinement);

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Scope of the recommended sentence on the sentencing criteria [Determination of a sentence] : thief group; 4 [Special thief number] increased from among the larceny against general property ; - mitigated factors in the event that a person carries a lethal weapon, - Reduction factors in the basic area [Determination of the recommended area] basic area [Scope of the recommended sentence] - One year to two years and six months;

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the repeated crime period despite the fact that the Defendant had already been punished several times due to the same kind of larceny, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant, considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the repeated crime period, even though he had the record of being punished several times in the same kind of larceny.

However, it appears that the defendant is against the truth of the crime of this case, and the victim has agreed with the victim only smoothly.