특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished several times for larceny in the past, but most of the 30 years have elapsed, the case where suspended sentence was sentenced in around 2012 and the instant crime was different from the Act on the Acceptance of Crimes, etc., the judgment of the court below that recognized habitualness of larceny is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below 1) The defendant habitually accessed the victim C on August 9, 2013 at the Bupyeong-gu Busan metropolitan area around 14:48, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the following grounds: (a) around August 9, 2013: (b) around 6,00 won in cash in the bank in which the victim is placed; (c) one 100,000 won card; and (d) one 60,000 won in the market price in which the two copies of credit card are contained; and (e) the court below found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged.
B. Habituality of the instant court’s judgment refers to any mistake of a criminal and the tendency of a crime, which is not the nature that forms the essence of the act, but the character that forms the character of the offender. Thus, whether habituality is habitual shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the offender’s age, character, occupation, environment, motive, method and place of the crime, time interval with the crime committed before, and similarity with the contents of the crime
(2) According to the records, the Defendant had been sentenced to a total of four times punishment due to the larceny from 1979 to 1985, and according to the relevant precedents, the Defendant was recognized as a habitor of the larceny. The Defendant, from around 27 years to around 2012, falls under the car even around 2012.