A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

On October 20, 2011, A was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by the Seoul Central District Court, and the execution of the sentence was terminated on July 21, 2013.

On January 6, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 03:15, 2014 at the site of remodeling construction of a building located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 160,000, 180,000 U-type 4, 180,000, the market price of which is equivalent to 180,000 won; (b) 2, 1,000, 1,000, 2, 1,000, 2, 1,000, market price of which is equivalent to 870,000 won; and (c) 1,2,000, 2,000, the market price of which is equivalent to 120,000,000 won; (d) 8,000,000,000 won, and (e) 1,000,00,000 won, 2,000.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Submission of a list of damaged articles;

1. Hearing report on each telephone call;

1. Reporting on the attachment of CCTV video CDs at convenience stores;

1. Each investigation report;

1. Inquiry into the enemy;

1. Copy of each judgment or summary order; and

1. Details of Defendant mobile phone calls;

1. Each photograph and CCTV photograph;

1. Previous records: Criminal records, etc. and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes as a result of the search of prisoners;

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

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders (decision of the type of punishment) is the reason for the sentencing of Article 35 of the Criminal Act (decision of the type of larceny) for general larceny (special salvists): the increased area of repeated crimes of the same kind (decision of the recommending area) [10 to 2 years] increased (decision of the sentencing range] [decision of the sentencing range] for the defendant was going to the scene of the day, but he claims that he would have caused his father to recover. However, if he caused his father to recover from his father, the telephone has been returned to his mother or not.