However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive against the Defendants.

Defendant

A on September 22, 2011, the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office was subject to a disposition to send juvenile protection cases due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Defendant B was subject to a disposition to send juvenile protection cases due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the Daejeon Public Prosecutor's Office on December 14

On February 3, 2014, from around 08:0 to 16:00, the Defendants entered the main house above the body of the victim E located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, and thereafter, Defendant B opened the entrance door through the toilet window, and opened the entrance door, Defendant A also intruded the victim’s house by entering the house through the entrance door, and stolen the cash of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000, in the front line in the house.

In addition, the Defendants attempted to steal or steal another’s property habitually over 15 times from that time until February 25, 2014, such as the list of crimes in the annexed sheet.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution

1. Each written statement of F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, S, and T;

1. Each photograph, each slide photograph, each on-site photograph;

1. Each inquiry report;

1. Habituality of each judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing larcenys in light of the fact that each crime history, method of commission of crime, frequency of crime, windows, etc. in the judgment has intruded into the victims' residence and the same kind of crime has been committed in a planned and organized manner several times;

1. Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 331 (2) and (1), and 342 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The defendants have the same criminal power as the defendants in the sentencing of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code, and the defendants have habitually committed the same crime, and most of them have committed larceny.