On January 12, 2001, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny in the Incheon District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court for 2 months, 2 years from suspension of execution, and the same year.

9. 12. From the same support on April 20, 207, 5 years of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc., 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for night intrusion larceny, 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny from the same support on August 11, 2008, 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) from the same support on November 19, 2009, 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime from the same support on August 26, 201, and the execution of the final sentence on January 22, 201, was completed, and around January 28, 2013: around 08:10 on January 28, 2013, the victim D, operated and operated in Socheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, where the victim did not work in front of the warehouse, and the market price inside the market price above 0.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, and current status of personal identification and confinement;

1. Habitualness of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing the habition of larceny in light of the records of each crime and the method of frequency of crimes in the judgment;

1. Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the selection of a limited term of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., confessions and reflects by the defendant on behalf of the defendant) of the defendant and his defense counsel. Although the defendant has stolen the victim's property at the time of the instant case, the defendant asserts to the effect that it was done under contingent motive or critical economic circumstances, and it is not due to the habition of larceny.

In the case of a stove, theft.