[특수절도,범죄단체조직][집18(1)형,056]
The case holding that there is an error of law that convicted a person who has been convicted of having rendered a judgment of acquittal because of the nature of habitual special larceny.
The case holding that there is an error of law that convicted a person who has been convicted of having rendered a judgment of acquittal because of the nature of habitual special larceny.
Article 332 of the Criminal Act, Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act
Defendant 1 and one other
Seoul District Court Decision 69No723 delivered on December 30, 1969
The appeal by the defendant in the appellate instance is dismissed.
The judgment of the court below on the defendant's consciousness is reversed, and the judgment is reversed.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The 80 days of detention days after the final appeal of the defendant's participation shall be included in the original sentence of the same defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's interference.
The main point of the appeal after the final appeal is to deny the criminal facts of this case and to argue for a serious mistake of facts by the court below, but the above reasons cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act in this case where one year and six months have been sentenced to imprisonment with labor for the defendant.
Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the records that the defendant stolen another person's property in collaboration with another person four times from August 5, 1968 to November 8 of the same year, the defendant can be found to have been prosecuted for habitual special larceny (Article 332 and Article 331 (2) of the Criminal Act). According to the certified copy of the criminal judgment (Article 89 referring to the records) against the defendant bound in the records, it can be confirmed that the defendant was convicted of having been convicted of having been sentenced to special larceny for the fact that the defendant stolen within Seoul District Court of Seoul on February 28, 1969. If the above judgment became final and conclusive after examining whether the above judgment became final and conclusive, the facts and the indictment constitute a comprehensive crime of habitual larceny, and thus, the judgment of acquittal was correct, but the court below did not take any action against the crime of habitual larceny but did not take any measure against the crime of habitual larceny. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the charges of habitual larceny.
Therefore, the appeal by the defendant is dismissed, and the judgment of the court below is reversed against the defendant's consciousness. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in accordance with Article 390 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon