A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 30, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for robbery in the Gwangju District Court for the crime of injury by robbery and completed the execution of the sentence on April 22, 2012.

Criminal facts

At around 20:55 on November 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) 20:55, the Defendant: (b) 1 of the instant net gold bullion (1) at the market price of KRW 4,500,000, and 2,250,000 at the KRW 2,00,000, 1 of the instant net gold bullion (10,000, market price of KRW 1,125,000, 50, and 1 of the instant net gold bullion (50, 50,000, 50, 200, 300.

Accordingly, the Defendant stolen property equivalent to KRW 8,000,000 on the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. The police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (verification of criminal records and convicts), copies of written judgments, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning personal identification and confinement status;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Reasons for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to 12 years;

2. The area of recommending the sentencing criteria for the larceny [the recommended area] general larceny (the recommendation area] and the mitigated area, four months to ten months from imprisonment.

3. In light of the fact that the Defendant, during the period of repeated crime due to robbery, committed the instant crime with heavy precious metal up to eight million won at the market price during the repeated crime period, and that if the Defendant was not immediately arrested by the police officers near the scene of the crime, the victim would have been able to incur large property damage if he was able to do so.

However, the fact that the defendant is against himself, the damaged goods have been restored, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant;