On October 7, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to nine months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. On August 12, 2011, the Gwangju District Court was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for a violation of Han law (thief) in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. On December 30, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced by the Gwangju District Court to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. On April 9, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times with prison labor due to larceny, such as having completed the execution of the sentence in the wooden Prison. On April 30, 2015, the Defendant was punished by imprisonment not less than three times with prison labor with prison labor for a total of KRW 197,500, KRW 1081, KRW 207, KRW 2081, KRW 407,7400.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal fictions of the F and a written statement prepared by the J;

1. Before judgment: References to criminal records and investigation reports (report on confirmation of criminal records of a suspect repeated crime);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 5-4 (5) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of repeated crimes (as to each crime in the market):

Articles 35 and proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50, and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act (the punishment imposed on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., of April 30, 2015, with heavier punishment)

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

The defendant's assertion and judgment on such assertion

The defendant asserts that at the time of each of the crimes of this case, the defendant did not have or did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions. According to the mental evaluation result of the public medical treatment and custody center of this court, although the defendant shows symptoms of imprudent disorder, it is judged that the defendant had a sound ability to distinguish things and make decisions, and the mental ability of the defendant appears to have been the same at the time of each of the crimes of this case, and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case in an intelligent manner, it is reasonable to view that the defendant has sufficient ability to distinguish things or make decisions at the time of each of the crimes of this case.

Reasons for sentencing

1. A primary crime;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (General Habitual Larceny) thiefying

[Special Sentencing] Reduction Elements

Members not subject to punishment

【Determination of Recommendation Area】

Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] One year and six months to three years

[General Convicts] - Reduction elements

Minor Damage

Where substantial damage has been recovered;

Seriously anti-competence

2. Second crimes:

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (general habitual and repeated thief) for habitual and repeated larceny

‘‘(A person with a special appearance] ‘‘(A person with a mitigated element]

【Determination of Recommendation Area】

Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] One year and six months to three years

[General Convicts] - Reduction elements

Minor Damage

Where substantial damage has been recovered;

Seriously anti-competence

3. Final scope of sentence: 1 year and 6 months from 1 year to 4 years and 6 months.

4. Determination of sentence;

Imprisonment for a year and six months;