절도
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. On August 25, 2017, the Defendant: (a) in E-art operated by the victim D in the Hanam-si of Gyeonggi-si (Seoul) on August 25, 2017, the Defendant: (b) placed approximately KRW 500,000 of the market price, which was displayed at the display stand in the E-art by taking advantage of the gaps in which the victim’s management was neglected; and (c) 5:30,000 of the market price of the E-art, and (d) cut off by putting 25 kinds of 5,00
2. Determination
A. In the case of habitual crimes, the effect of a public prosecution is equal to the facts charged in the indictment. The time limit for a judgment that is the last time at which the prosecution might be valid should be based on the time when the judgment is rendered, which is the final point at which the facts charged are likely to be examined. As such, the prosecution of a part of the fraudulent act committed in a separate and habitual crime by the time until the prosecution becomes effective is instituted habitually after the prosecution was instituted habitually. Even though the facts charged first include the fraud committed after the crime committed habitually, it is not allowed as it constitutes a double prosecution of the same case against which the public prosecution was instituted (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do331, Aug. 20, 2004). B. 204. The defendant was sentenced to one year after the Seoul High Court sentenced to the punishment of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) on January 10, 2018. Thus, it is recognized that the crime of larceny and the criminal facts charged in the final appeal are in full relation to the crime of this case.
I would like to say.
(c)
Therefore, the facts charged of this case constitute a double indictment for the same case where a public prosecution was already instituted, and thus, this part of the public prosecution is dismissed under Article 327 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act and is so ordered as per Disposition.