On January 14, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to three years in the Seoul Central District Court on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and completed the execution of the sentence on December 9, 2013.

around 21:40 on October 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) came into Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) discovered one E-T 100 Orobane owned by the victim D, with the key attached to the vehicle; (c) habitually stolen the victim’s goods worth KRW 3,524,000, total market price from around that time until October 16:22, 2015, as shown in the annexed crime list, by using the gap in the victim’s presence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Each statement of H, I, D, J, K, L, and M;

1. Each protocol of seizure;

1. CCTV photographs of suspect moving dong lines;

1. Investigation report (the verification of CCTV around the field, the investigation of CCTV at the site and the investigation of stolen damage, uniforms worn by a suspect at the time of committing a crime, the relative on-site verification of a suspect, CCTV verification, the tracking of a suspect's moving movement line through the perusal of CCTV images by the Seocho CCTV Control Center, the confirmation of a suspect's moving line after committing a crime, and the tracking and investigation of a theft of a year;

1. Records before judgment: Criminal records, etc. inquiry reports, investigation reports (not before disposition and report on results of confirmation), and results of confinement of prisoners;

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the records of the crime, the number of crimes, the frequency of crimes, and the repeated crimes of the same kind in the judgment;

1. Relevant Article 332 of the Criminal Act and Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders has been sentenced several times to the punishment for the same kind of crime for sentencing, and the punishment for the instant crime is repeatedly and repeatedly imposed within the period of repeated crime, and the risk of repeating the crime is also high.

It seems that the crime of this case was committed in an economically weak manner, and the consideration for family members is paid.