특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the records of the Defendant’s crime (not guilty part), the attitude of the instant crime, the Defendant’s conduct before and after the instant crime was committed, etc., the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded that the instant crime was caused by the realization of the theft habit. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or adversely affecting the conclusion
B. In light of the overall circumstances of the Defendant’s instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of larceny, habitualness refers to the habit of repeated larceny, and the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime, the frequency, period, motive, and method of the crime should be comprehensively considered.
(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant had been punished several times due to larceny, attempted larceny, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) again committed the instant crime after the lapse of seven months after release, and the Defendant tried to keep a door of the vehicle parked at night and take money and valuables inside the vehicle, which are related to the instant crime, and thus, falls under the same type and object of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s act at the time of the instant crime is not likely to have been committed. In full view of the following, the crime of this case is sufficiently recognized as having been committed through the formation of the Defendant’s wall against larceny.