On January 30, 1997, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. at the Seoul District Court on September 15, 1998; imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Seoul District Court on March 29, 2002; imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; imprisonment for a more than three years at the Seoul District Court on September 3, 2009; imprisonment for a more than one year and six months; imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; imprisonment for a more than 0,000 won on September 15, 2012.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning E and F;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: An inquiry report and an investigation report, including criminal records (verification of the previous record and the end date of execution of punishment);

1. Habituality: Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the fact that the person committed the instant crime of the same kind again within the short time after being released from the facility with the history of punishment for the same kind of crime;

1. Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Optional sentence and limited imprisonment;

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 regarding the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation. The defendant and his defense counsel are drunk at the time of the crime of this case.