On September 30, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to two years and six months for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Daejeon District Court's official support on September 30, 2009, and completed the execution of the sentence in the Chuncheon Prison on February 15, 2012. On April 25, 2013, the Defendant appealed six months from the Chuncheon District Court's imprisonment with prison labor for larceny and is still pending in the appellate trial.

On February 4, 2013, at around 20:43, the Defendant came to enter the I restaurant operated by the victim H in Chuncheon City, G, and came to have 13 copies of the right of 150,000 won, which was owned by the victim, by entering the window and entering the restaurant, and had 13 copies of the right of 150,000 won, which was owned by the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the building managed by the victim and stolen the property owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A H statement;

1. Protocols of seizure, lists of seizure and photographs of seized articles;

1. A thief photograph;

1. Notification of the current status of persons who coincide with the results of comparison with the DDA-DB;

1. Inquiries and replys about the fact-finding;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal history records and other inquiries, prisoner search results, investigation reports (report attached to judgments), Defendant, and defense counsel's assertion were asserted that the Defendant did not have any fact at the place where the instant crime was committed. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court are as follows: ① DNA collected from a new outbreak presumed to be an oil product of the offender discovered at the scene of the crime appears to have the same gene type as the Defendant's DNA; ② The Defendant stated that, at the time of receiving a report in Chuncheon prison, acid was the same as the product of the instant crime, and the victim was also the victim was also the victim's proteification; ③ the Defendant purchased the above 11-C Internet shopping site. However, the Defendant claimed that the purchase details of the above site were examined.