[criminal history] On December 12, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for night residence larceny at Seoul Southern District Court, and on November 27, 2014, the same court was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime, and on March 11, 2016, the same court made on March 11, 2016 Article 5-4(5)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act as applicable law.

Article 5-4(5)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 342, and Article 330 of the Criminal Act were applied to the same court on September 29, 2016.

On March 16, 2017, after being sentenced to eight months of imprisonment, the enforcement of the sentence was terminated in Seoul Southern House.

[2] On May 7, 2017, around 22:30, the Defendant opened a gate and a visit that were not set up in Seoul Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C and 103 and intruded into a residential area as a means of the victim’s residence. The Defendant left 400,000 won in cash located in the bank in front of the main room by taking advantage of the difference in the victim’s own possession.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence at night and stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Report on internal investigation (the confirmation of CCTVs, such as moving routes, etc. after committing the crime committed by the suspected person), and report on investigation;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (where such previous decisions and materials are attached thereto), and statutes;

1. Article 5-4 (5) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The determination of the defense counsel and the defendant's argument regarding the defense counsel and the defendant's assertion under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (the following sentencing is favorable to one another) of the Act on Reduction of Small Quantity and the defendant is a disabled person of class 3 of intellectual disability, and the defendant's proof of a wall after the birth of the victim.