A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for larceny at the Seoul Central District Court on April 7, 2014, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Detention Center on July 12, 2014.

2. Around 10:20 on November 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) placed a shopping bag in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul; (b) placed therein the amount equivalent to KRW 167,00 in the market value of Seo- four books, such as “mariage growth” owned by the victim Seoul Reading Center Co., Ltd.; and (c) cut off through stairs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A E-document;

1. Investigation report (return of damaged articles, No. 1), book guidance, photograph;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (Attachment to the same attached records, etc.), judgments (number 11), investigation reports (verification of repeated crimes of suspects), personal identification and confinement status, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 329 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 35 of the Criminal Act (decision of the type) of the thief for general property (special larceny) - The mitigated area of the same repeated crime [decision of the recommended area] that does not fall under the mitigated element type of crime, crime of living, crime not punishable - aggravation of the aggravated element - [decision of the recommended area] April-10 [the scope of the sentencing] [decision of the sentencing] of the defendant several times in April-10 [the decision of the recommendation area] of the same kind of force for the defendant, despite being the same force as that of the repeated crime, again constitutes the crime of this case in the same way. However, it is inevitable to sentence in light of the fact that the damaged goods are recovered as they are, the victim expressed his intention that he would not want the punishment if he is against the defendant, it appears that the crime of this case was caused by old age and economic difficulties, and considering all the factors such as the health condition of the defendant that is not good enough.