Seized evidence Nos. 1 and 2 shall be confiscated from the accused.

[criminal records] On August 27, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny, etc. at the Daegu District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Daegu Prison on April 8, 2016.

[Criminal facts]

1. On February 5, 2017, the Defendant discovered that, around 03:30 on February 5, 2017, the victim D, parked on the road located in Jindo-gun C, Jindo-gun, the Defendant opened the front window of E Ethp vehicle owned by the victim D, and then stolen it with the victim’s 256,00 won in cash and the amount of the non-foreign currency from the victim’s wall box located in the container wing-gun.

2. On February 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) opened a front door of a vehicle that was parked in the victim’s H learning vehicle located in Jindo-gun F, Jindo-gun, which was parked in front of the victim’s G house; (b) held a victim’s 30,000 KRW 30,000 KRW 1,100 KRW 1,00 KRW 1,000 KRW 50,000, which was located in the vehicle; and (c) stolen it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Each statement of D and G;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. On-site photographs, on-site photographs, ctv images, and photographs to take the ctv video images;

1. Reporting on occurrence of a disaster;

1. The investigation report (the receipt of the first report on damage and the identity of the suspect involved in the crime);

1. Previous conviction: (A), a written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, etc. (A), a report on investigation (former history confirmation, etc.), five copies of the judgment, and a personal acceptance status (A) [in relation to the criminal facts of paragraph (1) of the judgment, the defendant asserts that the defendant stolen cash and foreign currency from E E E E E E in the victim D, or that the amount of cash that the defendant stolen is not 256,000 won but 6,000 won.

However, in the investigative agency and this court, the victim D relatively specific statement about the amount of the damage amount and the circumstances in which the cash was placed on the wallet in the above Eth vehicle (this court stated that some of the damage amount is inconsistent, but the statement is not consistent.