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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On July 10, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with labor for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Seoul Northern District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Sungdong Detention House on October 17, 2015. On November 11, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Sungdong Detention Support, which became final and conclusive on February 6, 2017.

[2] On June 26, 2016, around 21:30, the Defendant discovered a taxi owned by the victim D, which was parked in the front of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and destroyed the favorable window by using the victim’s dracker prepared in advance, thereby thefting the victim’s possession of the dracker and the 50 dracker’s original right in the vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendant stolen the property owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiry into criminal history data, investigation reports (the progress of trials on a suspect's case and reporting on confinement), investigation reports (report accompanied by a copy of the text of the judgment), investigation reports (Attachment of judgments related to the period of repeated crime), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of final rulings related to the defendant

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That the criminal liability of the defendant who committed the instant crime, even though not only has the record of criminal punishment, such as multiple times, due to the same kind of crime as the sentencing of Article 39(1), but also has the record of criminal punishment, such as a repeated crime due to the same kind of crime, is not easy.

However, the crime of this case is a concurrent crime of larceny of the first head of the judgment and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which is a concurrent crime of the latter part of the Criminal Act and must consider the equity in the case of larceny, etc. of the judgment at the same time, and the defendant is able not to repeat the crime in depth, and the amount of damage is relatively small, and is limited to the victim.