On November 6, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court on November 14, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 14, 2014. On May 21, 2015, the same court was sentenced to one month of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny and five months of imprisonment with prison labor and became final and conclusive on the same day.

On September 16, 2014, at the E convenience store operated by the victim D in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 16, 2014, the Defendant, using the gap in which the surveillance of the victim was neglected, used in the E convenience store operated by the victim D in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, thereby putting the sum of 11,100 won in shopping bags, including one string, two string, and three string, and one string, one string, and one string, and one 1,100 won in market value.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Report of investigation (record 16 pages of photographs of damaged articles);

1. On-site CCTV image data (ROM);

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: Investigation report (a confirmation of theft, attachment to the judgment, etc. in Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2014Kadan2044, etc.), investigation report (a confirmation of the judgment of a suspect), investigation report (a confirmation of the judgment of a suspect), judgment (a final judgment), judgment (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2014Kadan3612, etc.), and application of the Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. In full view of the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Exempted Criminal Act (the first sentence of larceny, etc., the amount of damage, the time of the crime, the sentence of imprisonment, the contents of the crime in this case, the value of the damaged goods, and the immediate return of the damaged goods, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the fact that the defendant seems to have character or mental disorder in light of various circumstances indicated in the arguments or records in this case, even if the above judgment was rendered simultaneously with each of the crimes in this case for which the judgment became final and conclusive, it appears that the sentence would not have been aggravated.)