특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.
1. Progress of litigation;
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment, and the Defendant appealed against the lower judgment.
B. The trial before remand dismissed the defendant's appeal, and the defendant appealed against this.
C. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court below which recognized the fact that the defendant stolen money and valuables by intrusion upon the victim's residence two times as shown in the facts charged of this case, and held that the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case was justifiable. However, the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the case was reversed and remanded ex officio for the following reasons.
The judgment prior to the transmission of the case is the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes Act”) as to the facts charged in the instant case.
(1) The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that convicted the Defendant by applying Article 5-4(1) of this Act and Article 330 of the Criminal Act. The part concerning Article 330 of the Criminal Act among Article 5-4(1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (hereinafter “instant provisions”) is related to Article 330 of the Criminal Act.
) Articles 332 and 330 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “instant penal provisions”) shall apply to a person who habitually commits a crime under Article 330 of the Criminal Act.
It is the purport that more severe punishment is imposed.
However, the provisions of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, in addition to the elements of a crime of this case, does not entirely add a mark of special aggravated elements, and only increases the statutory penalty, thereby causing confusion in the application of the law, which leads to the confusion in the application of the law, as it leads to only the prosecution discretion of the prosecutor. Furthermore, unlike the punishment prescribed in the provisions of the Criminal Act, the statutory punishment of this case is added to life imprisonment with multiple-choices as well as the minimum sentence of imprisonment with labor for a term of three years, thereby failing to meet the legitimacy and balance in the penal system.