[criminal history] On February 14, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on October 22, 2014 to imprisonment with prison labor for night residence theft at night, etc. at the Suwon Giwon, but the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 22, 2014, but the said suspended sentence was revoked on December 18, 2014, and the execution of the said sentence was terminated on July 21, 2015.

[Criminal facts]

1. On January 31, 2016, at around 23:54, the Defendant: (a) opened a door-to-face of a driver’s seat not fastened by E.S. E. Roone Star (hereinafter “F.C.”) owned by the victim D; and (b) arrested the police officer, without being arrested, of KRW 2,960, totaling KRW 50,00, KRW 12,100, KRW 100, KRW 50, KRW 4,50, KRW 10, KRW 50, KRW 6,00, KRW 2960, KRW 10. On January 31, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. A photograph of a vehicle affected by the documents seized in the protocol of seizure of the defendant's legal statement D or G and a photograph of a screen picture taken by the defendant;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiries, such as criminal history, text of judgment, personal identification and acceptance status Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

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

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

1. The scope of punishment recommended to commit the larceny [the scope of punishment recommended] the scope of punishment [the scope of punishment recommended] for the larceny of general property, and the mitigated area (4 months to 10 months) [the person who has been specially mitigated] the crime of living [the person who has been specially mitigated] the same type of repeated crime;

2. As stated in the judgment of the sentence against the entire crime, the Defendant was subject to the suspended sentence for the crime of larceny under the same law, and even thereafter, repeated the same larceny crime.