[criminal record] The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months at the Seoul Central District Court on October 18, 2006 for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and on February 6, 2008, more than three times the same criminal records than the completion of the execution of the above punishment.

[2] The Defendant attempted to steal the victim's goods habitually as follows, but attempted to do so.

The defendant, under the influence of alcohol on the street, shall take off the wall from a person who was locked, thereby excluding him from such person.

In other words, I tried to steals another person's property by using the word "Icrithization" method.

On April 16, 2008, the Defendant discovered that the Victim F was in the front line of E located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D on April 16, 2008, while under the influence of alcohol, and deducted the wall on the part of the Victim.

In the case of theft, the victim was laid down on the top of the Twelth that he wanted to steals, and confirmed that the victim was locked with the face, and attempted to steals the blick by rhing clothes, but was sweld on the math of the math.

G was removed from the above place, and it was attempted to leave the above place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Decision of the Seoul Central District Court 2008 High Court Order 2191

1. Previous convictions: The above judgment;

1. Habitualness of the judgment: In light of the defendant's records of each crime, the method and frequency of crimes, and the fact that the defendant committed again the crime of this case during the remaining two months after release, etc., the records of the case subject to review [the records of the case subject to review shall be restored by making every effort as possible even if they were already destroyed due to the expiration of the preservation period, and where it is inevitable to complete recovery of the records, the records of the case shall be restored by comprehensively assessing the evidence of the original judgment, which can be known by the remaining materials collected in the trial procedure, including the written judgment, and the value of evidence newly presented in the new trial procedure shall be newly determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2154, Sept. 24, 2004). In this case, the