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. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal lies in the same criminal record as the defendant, it is difficult to recognize that the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, and the number of larcenys is committed by the defendant once.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's liability for habitual larceny as provided in Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habitual
In addition, in light of all the circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In determining the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, habitualness refers to the habit of repeated larceny, and the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive and method of the crime in the case should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of such criminal records and the frequency, period, means and methods, etc.
According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was punished for 1 year and 6 months of the suspended sentence due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. at the Daegu District Court on September 4, 2009; 2 years of the suspended sentence; and 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime in the same court on April 27, 2010; and each of the thiefs committed thefts upon the defendant's stores at night; and the crime of this case is similar to the crime of this case, the object and method of the crime of this case; and the defendant repeats the criminal of this case more than 3 months after being sentenced to the suspended sentence; and again commits the same crime of this case at least 8 months after the completion of the execution of the final sentence. In full view of these circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant's theft habits of this case had been realized from the crime of this case.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. Unreasonable sentencing.