[Criminal Power] On April 28, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny in the Seoul Northern District Court for six months, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 12, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 10, 2015, the Defendant, at the main point of “D” located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on July 10, 2015, stolen the victim E and the victim F with only one gallon S51 unit in the victim E market value equivalent to KRW 820,00,000, and one gallon 61 unit in the victim E market value equivalent to KRW 9,50,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Photographs of damaged articles;

1. A report on investigation (the sequence 10 in list of evidence);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, etc., inquiry reports, five copies of judgment, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on trial dates;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Grounds for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes;

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: one month to nine years; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria (as of July 1, 2015, the scope of recommending punishment) (as of July 1, 2015), there is no basic area (as of April to August) (as of April, 200) of the basic area for the larceny of general property;

3. The fact that the Defendant was detained for the larceny as stated in the first head written in the judgment of the court of first instance and was released for not less than three months after being sentenced to a suspended sentence, and the Defendant committed the instant crime of this case under similar law since the court of first instance was not released after being sentenced to a suspended sentence, and the record of the same fine is three times. However, it is also considered that the commission of the instant crime is the larceny for the neglected goods, the damage was recovered due to the restoration of all the damaged goods, the Defendant appears to be aged and living, and the Defendant appears to have reached the instant crime due to his old age and living, equity with the case of larceny as stated in the judgment of the first head, and other all the sentencing factors indicated in the record of this case, such as the background, mode