A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and a fine of three hundred thousand won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On August 28, 2007, the above judgment became final and conclusive on the same day by having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. on the same day, and on October 30, 2008, the execution of the above sentence was terminated. On September 9, 2011, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 17, 201, and on May 18, 201, three years of imprisonment with prison labor and a fine of three hundred thousand won was sentenced by the Government District Court for habitual larceny, etc. on the same day, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 19, 2016.

【Criminal Facts】

1. At around 23:00 on April 18, 2009, the Defendant habitually stolen one set of 50c tex tex, which is managed by the victim D, in a way that the victim is separated from one front part and connects electric wires, before the E-cafeteria operated by the victim D in Guri-si, Guri-si.

In addition, the Defendant, from November 24, 2008 to April 21:50, 2009, stolen another’s erroneous land and rock, etc. on seven occasions in total, as shown in the annexed crime sight table, habitually, from around November 24, 2008 to April 24, 2009.

2. On April 18, 2009, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) and driven 50c tex tex from the front day of the Guri-si to the front day of the F, without obtaining a motorcycle driver’s license on a motorcycle around 23:00.

Summary of Evidence

Even if the record of a case subject to review has already been destroyed due to the expiration of the preservation period, the court shall restore the record by making every possible effort, and where it is inevitable to completely restore the record, the court shall comprehensively evaluate the evidence in the original judgment known by the remaining data collected, such as the written judgment, and the value of newly submitted evidence in the retrial procedure, and make a new decision on the propriety of the original judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2154, Sept. 24, 2004).