특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.
Seized evidence 2 through 5 shall be confiscated.
Punishment of the crime
On May 31, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by the Ulsan District Court on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the record of the same crime is seven times more.
On November 7, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of extortion at the Daegu District Court's Sung Branch on the part of November 7, 2008 and completed the execution of the sentence at the detention house on February 20, 2010.
On March 17, 2010, the Defendant: “D” operated by the Victim C in Ansan-si B, A around 01:0, the Defendant: (a) laid down a shacker with a length of about 50 cm between the entrance and the locks; and (b) intruded with the locks by removing them from the entrance; and (c) cut off with a cash amount of KRW 300,000,000 in the payment period.
In addition, as stated in the list of crimes in the annexed sheet from April 11, 2010 to April 04:00, the Defendant committed an attempted theft or theft of money and valuables worth KRW 435,000, a total of seven times.
Summary of Evidence
1. A copy of the original judgment rendered by the defendant at the Daegu District Court at the time of his/her oral statement 2010 Highest 262;
1. Previous conviction in judgment: Copy of the sentence of the Daegu District Court 2008 High Court 2008 High Court 134 High Court 2008 High Court 134 High Court 201
1. Habituality of judgment: Recognition of habitive walls (the record of a case subject to review has been already destroyed due to the expiration of the preservation period, in light of the records of each crime, the number of crimes, the frequency of crimes, and the fact that the same kind of crimes are systematically repeated;
Even if possible, the records must be restored by making full efforts, and if it is inevitable to restore records, the evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial, which can be known by the remaining data collected, including the written judgment, and the value of evidence newly submitted in the retrial procedure, shall be comprehensively assessed, and the propriety of the judgment subject to a retrial shall be newly determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2154, Sept. 24, 2004, etc.).