특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that of the lower court’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) too unreasonable.
2. The Defendant acknowledges all of the crimes, and reflects the wrongness.
The defendant himself/herself has actively cooperated in the investigation while disclosing the crime, and is suffering from a recurrence friendly disorder and a water surface disorder, and seems to have a good health condition.
Among the victims, C returned the damaged goods, and AD, AE, Z, AA, and AB expressed their intention to take the Defendant in the investigative agency.
Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.
However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant who habitually intrudes upon his residence while living in the rural community, and thus commits the crime of this case. It is very poor in light of the methods, contents, frequency, etc. of the crime.
The Defendant committed the crime on a planned basis, such as wearing a pasture, in order to take the farm household in the low time zone as the object of the crime, and not to have his fingerprints left.
On June 26, 2015, the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the repeated crime period of not more than one year after having been sentenced to four years of imprisonment due to habitual larceny.
The victims, except the victims C, did not recover from the damage.
In full view of the above circumstances, as well as all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is too unreasonable to respect them.