[Criminal Power] On February 11, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) in the Gwangju District Court’s net support.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 10, 2013, at around 16:20, the Defendant opened a toilet window on the second floor and intruded into the house with a cash of 103,000 won, which is the victim in the house and located in the house, and at least 63,430 won of the market price, and a 18-k infant posts equivalent to 250,000 won of the market price, including one 1,50,000 won of the market price, and 18-k infant sludge with a 90,000 won of the market price, and 20,000,000 won for young children in the market price of 90,000 won, and 1,000,000 won for young children and 1,000,000 won of the market price of 1,000,000 won of the market price of 1,000,000 won of the market price of 360,010.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Photographs of damaged articles and photographs of criminal tools;

1. Investigation report (as to the calculation of the amount of damage, the watch held by the suspect, and the photograph of contents contained therein);

1. Before judgment: Criminal records and investigation reports (report attached to precedents of the same kind of power);

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 fact that the same kind of crimes are systematically and systematically repeated;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 332 and Article 329 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and Articles 332 and 329 (Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act, although the damaged articles were completely returned to the victim and actually recovered from damage, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime and again committed the crime in this case during the parole period, and the victim’s house without any connection with the defendant due to Internet search in advance.