No. 1 and 2 of the seized evidence shall be returned to the victim's name unclaimed.

[Criminal Justice] On October 6, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for larceny, etc. at the military court of the Army No. 39 on March 6, 2011. The Defendant’s criminal records of larceny and attempted larceny are six times.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 30, 2014, at around 03:20, the Defendant opened an unrecepted 90,000 won in cash, which is the victim’s possession, at the front number E-3 car parking lot in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, the Defendant opened and opened an unrecepted 90,000 won in cash, from that time until August 13, 2014, as described in the separate list of crimes by the aforementioned method until August 04:10, 2014, the Defendant did not bring about a total of 16 times, as shown in the separate list of crimes, or did not bring about any locked goods.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen or attempted to steals the victims' property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Each statement;

1. The scene of the incident, photographs of damaged vehicles, each suspect's photograph, field photograph, and each CCTV recording CD;

1. Each investigation report (to attach a video photograph ofCCTV);

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records and investigation reports (prior to dispositions and report on results of confirmation);

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the records of each crime, the frequency of crimes, the frequency of crimes, and the fact that the same kind of crimes are repeated several times in a planned manner;

1. Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The Defendant, having reasons for sentencing under Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, was sentenced to four fines for larceny and attempted larceny, and each of the larcenys in this case over 16 times in addition, even though there were criminal records subject to suspended execution once, even though they had been sentenced to one suspended sentence.