특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. The sentence of the lower court (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.
2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at Suwon Franchising Methods Board on December 22, 2016, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 8, 2017. As such, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) for which judgment became final and conclusive as well as the instant crime of this case are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment after considering the case of concurrent judgment and equity and considering the mitigation or exemption of punishment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.
Therefore, in the case of a trial, the prosecutor applied the provision of the law to add "Article 37 of the Criminal Code" to "Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Code," and the court permitted this.
In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument about sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.
[Re-written judgment] The summary of the facts constituting an offense and the evidence admitted by the court below and the summary of the evidence are as follows: (a) the judgment of the court below’s dismissal of the facts constituting an offense and the summary of the evidence is as follows: “The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months; and (b) the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 8, 2017; and (c) the summary of the evidence was identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for the addition of “the defendant’s oral statement at the trial” to “the previous conviction in the judgment” in the summary of the evidence column, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of
Application of Statutes
1. Article 5-4 (5) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime committed;
1. Aggravation of repeated crimes;