특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
3. Seized sets.
B. Before remanding the scope of the trial of this court, this court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the charge of theft of property equivalent to approximately KRW 28,560,00,00 in total nine times, such as the list of punishment (1) Nos. 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, and 12 of the charges of this case, among the charges of this case, and rendered a judgment of conviction on the remainder of the charges, and dismissed all the appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor.
However, since only the Defendant appealed on the conviction part of the judgment of the party prior to remand, the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below was separated and finalized by the way of appeal period, and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles have been frequently operated in the vicinity of each of the places indicated in the facts charged of this case in order to collect and trade stolen cargo vehicles, but there is no fact that construction materials have been stolen or a vehicle license plate has been stolen as stated in No. 1, No. 4, and No. 10 as stated in the crime log table (hereinafter “crime log table”) attached to the original judgment, and the Defendant had operated the vehicle without a driver’s license by arbitrarily attaching the number plate of another vehicle on its own cargo vehicle, such as as indicated in (2) of the crime log table.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. After the prosecutor's ex officio determination is remanded, the court changed the name of the crime against the defendant into "Habitual Larceny Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes", "Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act", respectively.