A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul Central District Court on November 23, 2005 to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and on March 8, 2007, one year and six months of imprisonment, and one year and six months of June 11, 2009, respectively, and completed the enforcement of the final sentence on October 12, 2010.

At around 03:00 on July 24, 2013, the Defendant turned out one 100,000 won in cash owned by the victim in a bank, a national bank, a Japanese bank, and a credit card bank, respectively, in the case where the Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul D Prize No. 2 71 on the second 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 71st 201, the Defendant turned out one 100,000 won in the market price in which the victim F was located under the keptter’s book.

As a result, the Defendant was sentenced to two or more penalties for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and habitually stolen another’s property within three years after the execution is completed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. Each photograph;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 1, 7 of the evidence list);

1. Records before judgment: Criminal records, etc. and inquiry reports and investigation reports (attached to judgments, etc.);

1. Habitualness in the holding: Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing the habition of larceny on the grounds of the following: “Judgment on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel”

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Selection of Punishment: Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act

2. Aggravation of repeated crimes: The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act;

3. Discretionary mitigation: Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel as to the grounds for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the following favorable circumstances among the grounds for sentencing)

1. The gist of the claim is that the defendant steals one wall owned by the victim as indicated in the judgment, but this is not a crime committed by the defendant by contingently taking a instantaneous bath, nor a theft habit inherent in the defendant.

2.However, in this Court.