[criminal history] On August 28, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (domination Award) in the Support for Insan of Suwon Friwon, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Innju prison on April 19, 2016.

[2] On August 16, 2017, around 03:35, the Defendant: (a) stolen the victim E, who was seated next to the “DPC room” located in C at the time of light lighting; (b) with a cash monitor located next to the locking place; and (c) with a locking that the market price of the victim’s possession could not be known, where one driver’s license is included.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements;

1. Each photograph;

1. Previous convictions as indicated in the judgment: Inquiry about criminal history, application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Suwon District Court's order 1788, Suwon District Court's order 2015, output of each written judgment 5347, Suwon District Court's 2015, and current status of individual confinement

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

1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes [the scope of recommending punishment] : (a) there is no basic area (6 months to 1 year and 6 months) (the person subject to special sentencing) in the basic area (6 months to 1 year and 6 months) of category 2 (general larceny) of the Criminal Act for general property ; (b) a decision on sentencing / a decision on sentencing / a decision on sentencing

However, the Defendant committed the crime of larceny, the crime of embezzlement, the crime of stolen, the crime of stolen, the crime of stolen, the crime of stolen, and the crime of the acquisition of stolens (including one-time punishment), the imprisonment with prison labor for one time, the suspension of the execution of three times, and the fine for each of the crimes. There are many records of the crime.

On the date of the pronouncement of this case, the case was rejected several times.

It is doubtful whether there is a compliance consciousness.

In particular, the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he was in the period of repeated crime due to the crime of this kind.

In addition, as long as the defendant has completed the execution of the above punishment, he commits the crime of intrusion on residence and the crime of damaging property, and commits larceny of the same kind of crime in this case.