A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 13, 2010, the Defendant sentenced the Seoul Southern District Court to two years of imprisonment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence on August 2, 2012.

At around 02:00 on April 8, 2014, the Defendant habitually opened a door that was not corrected by the victim D (E) at the gas storage front of the gas storage, and stolen cash amounting to KRW 1,250,000 in the vehicle at the driver’s seat receipt book from around 02:0 on April 8, 2014, the Defendant used or attempted to steal one gift certificate and resident registration certificate of KRW 6,847,70,260 in cash and one resident registration certificate of KRW 260,00 in the same manner as the list of crimes in the attached Table from around 02:0 on May 14, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

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

1. CCTV photographs (M apartment parking lots);

1. Records of seizure, lists of seizure and photographs of seized articles;

1. Records before and after judgment: Criminal records, reply reports, and search results by users;

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. Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts and Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. The Defendant’s assertion regarding discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act was found to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and asserts mental and physical disability.

However, in light of various circumstances, such as the frequency, process, means, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, which are acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant does not seem to have reached a weak level of ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes. Therefore, the foregoing is difficult.