[Criminal Justice] On September 4, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for attempted larceny at the Gwangju District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on January 1, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 10, 2013, at around 06:28, the Defendant discovered that the driver’s seat door of the DST3 vehicle owned by the victim C was parked in the front line of Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, and that the Defendant opened the driver’s seat door of the said vehicle without locking and colored the stolen objects, but the stolen objects were not stolen.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement prepared in C and a written statement prepared in E;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records and other inquiry reports, investigation reports, identification of the fact of release from the military court, identification of the status of personal identification and confinement to Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes is that the defendant was punished twice for the same crime, once for the suspension of execution, and twice for the same crime, and in particular, even after the completion of the execution of the above sentence, repeats the crime of this case even during the repeated crime (in particular, the crime committed by the defendant, among the criminal records, was committed by opening the door of a motor vehicle not corrected, and the criminal record of the above repeated crime was committed by opening the door of the motor vehicle not corrected, and opening the door of the motor vehicle not corrected, and opening the door of the motor vehicle and attempted to steals the property, but the criminal record of the above repeated crime was committed by attempted to steals the property, and it is the same as the criminal

However, it is true that the defendant's mistake is recognized and against himself, that there is no property actually stolen because the defendant did not discover stolen objects, that the defendant saw that he would not repeat again in the future with this day, and that he would not repeat again, and the motive for the crime of this case.