On April 26, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months with prison labor for larceny, and on March 11, 2008, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced one year and six months to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Seoul Northern District Court on March 11, 2008. On October 6, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) in the support for the development of the Suwon branch of the Suwon branch on October 6, 201 and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Southern Branch on February 5, 2012.

On May 16, 2013, the Defendant habitually stored in D Hospital located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul on May 16, 2013, 02:30, in the front of D Hospital located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stolen cash located in the victim E-owner’s self-reader, string, and string down from the vehicle section located in the vicinity of the vehicle section, into the hacker’s key to the hacker’s key, opened a hacker’s door, and 70,000 won in cash.

In addition, from June 13, 2013 to June 13, 2013, the total amount of 190,000 won was stolen by the same method three times, such as the statement in the list of offenses.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. E statements;

1. Confirmation of personal information on the fingerprints of the theft case, such as field photographs, investigation reports (on-site ctv investigation), investigation reports (in response to the result of taking the on-site fingerprints), A veterinary data, photographs on the scene of the crime, and investigation reports (related to failure to report on damage);

1. Previous convictions: A written inquiry about criminal history, an investigation report (Attachment to a written judgment), and an investigation report (report on confirmation of the fact of release from a court);

1. Habitualness of the judgment: The defendant may be admitted to have a habit of larceny, in consideration of the records of each crime, method of crime, frequency of crime, and the fact that the person again commits the crime of this case within the period of repeated crime after having been sentenced to a punishment for the same kind of crime in the judgment;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (a comprehensive selection of imprisonment, with prison labor);

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act provides that habitual larceny under the Criminal Act is not subject to the sentencing guidelines.