On November 14, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 300,000 won of a fine due to larceny, etc. in support of Sungnam branch of Suwon branch of Suwon, and completed the execution of the above imprisonment on May 28, 2015.

On August 7, 2015, at a “E” restaurant operated by the victim D in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Sungnam-si, the Defendant: (a) opened a locker and intruded into the restaurant by inserting the knife by inserting the knife and inserting the knife; and (b) intruded the knife’s key on the computer.

After all, the market value of the victim, which was parked in front of the above restaurant, was 1.2 million won or more, the victim's market value, which was 1.1 million won or more, was stolen.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and one copy of the personal confinement status;

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

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

1. The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment] / The scope of the punishment [the scope of the punishment] / The case where the area of mitigation (eight months to one year and six months) (special mitigation (special mitigation)] intrudes into any place other than indoor residential space (four types) / The case of any repeated crime of the same kind;

2. Determination of sentence;

A. The Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she was subject to criminal punishment on several occasions due to the theft crime (three times of punishment by room, and one fine), and that he/she committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she committed the same repeated crime.

(b) it is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds that the favorable normal mistake is recognized and reflected, and that the defendant has recovered from the urine and has been returned to the victim;