A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Western District Court on October 29, 2003, and eight months in addition to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime at the Seoul Western District Court on December 19, 2008, and eight times in addition to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime at the Seoul Western District Court on December 19, 208.

On the other hand, on November 11, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for habitual larceny at the Seoul Western District Court on the other hand, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 19, 2015.

Criminal facts

around 10:30 on March 21, 2014, the Defendant: (a) opened a stud restaurant in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Operation “D” restaurant; and (b) intruded into it; (c) opened a string of the string in order for the victim to prepare for business; and (d) opened a string of the string of the string of the strings; and (d) removed one 600,000 won in cash owned by the victim within the string of the string of alcoholic beverages after the string of the string in order to prepare for business; and (e) removed string female strings containing

They have been in possession.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. C’s statement;

1. On-site and CCTV closures, CCTV data, related photographs, and related CCTV data;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: A criminal history inquiry, investigation report (the attachment of detailed statement, habitual review and judgment, summary order and report attached to a non-written complaint under several Acts), each attached document, each judgment (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2015 order 2106 after the second sentence of Seoul Western District Court), and inquiry of summary information of the case;

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the records of each crime, the number of crimes, the frequency of crimes, and the repeated crimes of the same kind in the judgment;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. As to the assertion of defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the suspended execution of the Criminal Act, the defense counsel committed the thief crime of this case, and the defendant was sentenced to a punishment for one year for habitual larceny, and the sentence became final and conclusive.