A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

【criminal career” The Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court on October 8, 2012, and completed the execution of the sentence at Seongdong-gu District Court on June 16, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the same court was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, and was sentenced to two years of suspended execution on May 11, 2013, and is currently under suspended execution.

【Criminal Facts】 The Defendant stolen the remainder of smartphones with poor living and frying soup, and frying soup, and frying them to use them as living expenses. On February 16, 2014, around 04:38, the Defendant stolen them by using one galthical 3 smartphone in the victim E’s market price, which is the victim’s own 1,128,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of E police statement;

1. CCTV photographs at the scene of crime;

1. Previous records: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records and investigation reports (former records and attachment of court rulings, and current status of confinement/collection of individual persons);

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 35 of the Criminal Act [Determination of Punishment] for the larceny of general property - Class 2 (General Larceny) [Special Character] crime of mitigation element - Crime of Living - Aggravation element of mitigation element - [Determination of recommendation sphere] 4 to 10 months [limited to general person] - Decision of mitigation element / Decision of mitigation element / Decision of sentence / Decision of sentence / Decision of sentence ] Defendant should strictly punish Defendant in light of the fact that Defendant committed the instant crime without being able to do so during the period of repeated crime and probation period. However, Defendant committed the instant crime in order to prepare monthly rent at the place where he was living together with Defendant who was living together before giving birth, and the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is not relatively significant, and Defendant’s age, age, and other age.