A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

On September 28, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny on September 28, 2007, and on May 22, 2009, to imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and for 10 months on May 27, 2010, and completed the execution of the sentence on February 14, 201.

On April 24, 2012, around 18:45, the Defendant cut off 7,000 won of the market price owned by the victim D, with 70,000 won and 700,000 won, around 10,000 won of the market price in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Investigation reports (componating written judgments, etc. of suspects A for the same crime);

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, such as damaged articles;

1. Article 5-4 (5) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. The reason for sentencing [decision of types] under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation [decision of types] thief, habitual larceny, repeated crime, and first [decision of recommending area] basic area / [decision of recommending area] 2 or 4 years from 2 years to 4 years [decision of sentencing] of imprisonment [decision of sentencing] again leads to the crime of this case even though the defendant was punished several times for the same crime, it cannot be used, but it is against the defendant's wrong recognition. The theft of this case seems to have been against the defendant's wrong recognition, and there is room for misunderstanding of ownership or economic value due to the relation outside of the apartment door, which is owned outside of the apartment door or outside of the apartment door, it seems that the defendant's gambling or decision-making ability of the defendant is insufficient, there is no profit acquired by the defendant through the crime, the defendant's health condition and environment, etc.