On May 2, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two months of imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny, etc. at Seoul Northern District Court and one year of imprisonment with prison labor, respectively, on February 23, 2016, and completed the execution of each of the above punishment at the Cheongju Prison.

In a state where the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental retardation 2, the defendant was placed in front of the victim D's house in Gui-si around March 5, 2016, when he was in front of the victim D's house in Gui-si around 18:00 on March 5, 2016, and stolen the property, and removed the tape attached to the shouldered fluor glass, opened the fluor by inserting hand, and opened the fluor and opened the fluor, and had one Samsung television and one video display at the market price in which the victim was on the west head of the Si.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence and stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant’s legal statement

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects of E;

1. Investigation report (the result of inquiry into DNA (NA) on the suspect's specific-specific-written response to a request for appraisal, a gene appraisal report, and a DNA personal information of the detained suspect upon request for genetic testing at the scene of the theft accused case);

1. On-site photographs, reports on results of field identification, copies of welfare cards, and written rulings;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, the acceptance status of each individual, and the application of the statute to inquire about summary information of each case;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act (abscisonation of intention), Article 319 of the Criminal Act (absconation of residence), and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, with prison labor;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. Article 10 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate mental and physical drugs;

1. In light of the former part of Article 37 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the same Act, the reason for sentencing is that the defendant was sentenced to criminal punishment, such as multiple times of criminal punishment for the same crime, and that the defendant committed the crime of this case since he/she was released from prison as he/she committed the same crime, it is inevitable to sentence the crime of this case.

However, the defendant led to confession and reflect on the crime of this case.