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

Punishment of the crime

On October 21, 2003, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for night intrusion larceny, etc. at night at the Seoul District Court on October 21, 2003, and the charge was stated that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for night intrusion larceny, etc. on September 3, 2003 at the Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch of Seoul District Court on September 3, 2003; however, according to the inquiry letter, etc. such as criminal history, it is recognized that the Seoul District Court, the appellate court, reversed the above judgment on October 21, 200 and sentenced to 11 months

On July 23, 2004, the Gwangju District Court was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for an attempt to larceny at night, and on May 12, 2005, sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the same court on May 12, 2005, sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the same crime at the Seoul Southern District Court on February 1, 2007, and sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the same crime at the Seoul Southern District Court on July 16, 2009, and completed the execution of the sentence on February 11, 2014.

The Defendant, around March 2, 2014, opened a door that was not locked by the victim C, the victim C at the resident priority parking lot located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsung-gu, Seoul, and followed the brush, west, west, etc., but did not commit the attempted crime because there was no stolen objects.

The Defendant, including this, from March 11, 2014 to March 11, 2014, stated the total of KRW 10,005,00 in the indictment, which is the sum of KRW 7,505,00, which is the ownership of the victims, on three occasions, as shown in the list of crimes, but in light of the list of crimes, it appears to be a clear clerical error of KRW 10,005,00, this appears to be a clear clerical error in the list of crimes. Thus, the Defendant’s correction ex officio is recognized on the grounds that there is

A reasonable amount of property has been stolen and attempted twice.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen the victims' property three times, and attempted twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's person;