1. On March 7, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 09:30 on March 7, 2013, 2013, the Defendant: (b) held 48 objects that were not locked and stolen cash owned by C, a victim C, who was kept in custody at the Eari-gu Eari-gu, Chungcheongnam-si; and (c) cut off KRW 700,000,000.

2. At around 10:06 on March 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed theft against the victim F, with the key to an object box located adjacent to the victim F, who was diving, and opened the victim’s right and wrong; and (b) cut off one lock that includes cash, 70,000 won, identification card, credit card, etc., owned by the victim.

3. From March 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed soup at the 16th floor soup room, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, the Defendant: (b) cut off KRW 186,00,00 in cash, which was owned by the victim, with the key to the object box located adjacent to the victim G, and opened the victim’s object; and (c) stolen the said cash, which was kept in custody.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of C and G preparation;

1. A report on damage to the preparation of the F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on occurrence of disasters;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the sentencing reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act reflects the defendant's mistake, but the defendant has the history of punishment for the same kind of crime, the damage has not been recovered, and the sentencing guidelines for the larceny crime are determined within the scope of the recommended type [the recommended type of punishment [the general property theft, the two types of theft (general larceny), the mitigation range (4 to 10 months, the mitigation factor: the life-based crime)] set forth in the "Sentencing Guidelines," taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments.