A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

On May 8, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the Ulsan District Court on May 16, 2009, which became final and conclusive on May 16, 2009. On May 27, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. from the Incheon District Court’s Branch Branch Branch of the Incheon District Court, which became final and conclusive on August 20, 20

At around 10:00 on November 24, 2006, the Defendant habitually and jointly with C, and around 10:0 on November 24, 2006, the Defendant reported the network from the stairs in front of the elevator 27 dong 1301, Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment 27 dong 1301, and C, by using the date dricker prepared in advance, invaded into the house, and stolen the unsatisf’s market price owned by the victim E, with two unsaturg, Jin-ju, foreign exchange bank, credit card, gold bling, cosmetics, and visibility, etc., and stolen the property amounting to the total market price of KRW 41,058,00 on seven occasions in total, as indicated in the attached list of crimes, from around October 4, 2007.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol concerning suspect interrogation of C;

1. Each statement of E, F, G, H, I, J, and K;

1. Scenic land in each field;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records and investigation reports (a separate final and conclusive judgment shall be attached);

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of statutes to the theft is recognized in light of the records of each crime, frequency of crimes, and the fact that the same kind of crime has been repeated several times in a planned manner;

1. Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 331 (2) of the Criminal Act, and Article 331 (2) of the Criminal Act, inclusive of the pertinent Article and the

1. The proviso to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, of statutory mitigation;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is deemed to have committed a theft of property by destroying the entrance jointly with two persons and impairing another’s residence, and the nature of the crime is bad, and the amount of damage suffered by the victims is considerably significant.