On August 24, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for night building intrusion larceny at Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court) and on December 18, 2018, in addition to the completion of the execution of the sentence in Seoul Southern Southern District Court, the same criminal records are more than five times.

On July 8, 2019, at around 00:55, the Defendant, at the front of the parking lot of the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul building B, talked that, when there was a shortage of money in the prison, a vehicle parked without opening a door among the parked vehicles and could easily steals money in his hand when there was a vehicle between the matches, and the vehicle without opening the door, and entered the said parking lot with the intention of cutting off the article by printing the unlocked vehicle, and then entered the said parking lot on the victim C with the intention of stealing the article. While the door of the D vehicle owned by the victim C was cut down, the Defendant did not carry the intention without opening, but did not commit the attempted act. In other words, the Defendant attempted the F vehicle’s even the door of the victim E, which was next to the said vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each written statement of C, E, and G;

1. Investigation report ( telephone conversations with shots G, etc.);

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports;

1. Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. From among concurrent crimes, two of the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act was committed.

하지만 만약 목격자에 의해 발각되지 않았더라면 피고인은 위 범행장소에서 결국 절도행위를 마쳤을 것으로 보이며, 피고인은 자신의 이같은 범행이 잘못된 것이라는 데 대한 의식도 옅은 것으로 보인다.

In particular, it is against the fact that the punishment has been repeatedly imposed for several years.

The defendant's crime of this case is the period of repeated crime.