On November 6, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. by the Daegu District Court, and 2 years of suspension of execution, and on January 9, 2014, the Defendant requested a summary order from the Incheon District Court to be stolen and is still pending in trial.

From September 18, 2013 to October 20, 2013, the Defendant entered the “EPC bank” operated by the victim D in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon, with a new wall-to-date, and then deducted the gap in which the surveillance of the said victim was neglected, the Defendant habitually stolen the property owned by the victim by 45 times in total, as shown in the separate crime list, from January 18, 2014, the sum of 5,201,000 property owned by the victims, as shown in the separate crime list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement on F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, Q, and R;

1. Each statement of D and S;

1. Certificates of acceptance of each damaged article and photographs of the damaged article;

1. Report on occurrence of a theft;

1. On-site reports (CCTV);

1. Previous records: A inquiry report on criminal records, etc., previous records of dispositions, results of confirmation, and investigation reports (written judgments and reports on binding of indictments);

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the records of each crime, the number of crimes, the number of crimes, and the number of times of the same kind of crimes in the judgment;

1. Article 5-4 (1) and Article 329 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Selection of Imprisonment for a limited term concerning the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant reflects his mistake, or that the defendant habitually commits the thief of this case without being aware of the fact that the defendant had a record of punishment for the same kind of crime even though he had a record of punishment, and that the victim is a majority and is considerable amount of damage, but does not properly recover from damage.