One excessive (11cm in length) confiscated (201cm in Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office No. 579) shall be returned to the victim K.

The Defendant, without a certain occupation, committed soup in a soup, etc., committed so that money and valuables from others were stolen or taken on the job to raise living expenses.

1. Night theft;

On March 2, 2014, at around 00:22, the Defendant infringed upon L, which was operated by the victim K in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan GovernmentJ, with a view to the excessive excess of KRW 3,000, the market price owned by the victim of the third floor singinging the third floor.

2. Attempted special robbery;

On March 3, 2014, around 11:05, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim’s children, who were divingd in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan GovernmentJ (71 years of age), with a deadly weapon that was stolen, “one-way, one-way, one-way, one-way, one-way, in order to take money and valuables against the victim’s side in order to take over money and valuables against the victim’s back to the victim’s side.” (b) the Defendant resisted the victim as well as the victim’s children, who were divingd in the said measures, and attempted to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the police about 0 and M;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. On-site photographs and photographs of seized articles;

1. An investigation report (to hear and report the statement of L staff) and an investigation report (a confirmation report by a suspect, such as a stolen knife, etc.);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 330 of the Criminal Act, Articles 342, 334(2), 334(1), and 333 of the Criminal Act (the point of portable robbery and the choice of limited imprisonment)

2. Attempted mitigation;

Article 25(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the crime of attempted special robbery)

3. Aggravation for concurrent crimes; and

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Punishment for Crimes of Attempted Special Robbery with Punishment heavier than Punishment)

4. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

5. Return to victims.

Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and three months from one year to one year and three months;

2. The scope of sentence recommended according to the sentencing criteria; and

A. Paragraph 1 of the holding

[Determination of Punishment] thief for thief general property

[Special Convicted Persons] - Reductions: Where a person intrudes into any place other than a living type crime or indoor residential space (type 4).

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 4 months to 1 year and 6 months

B. Paragraph 2 of the holding

[Determination of Types] General Criteria for Robbery> Type 2 (Special Robbery)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Three to Six years of imprisonment

C. The standards for handling multiple crimes: Along with 1/2 of the upper limit of the sentence scope of attempted special robbery, which is a basic crime from 3 to 6 years of imprisonment, is added to the upper limit of the sentence scope of attempted special robbery.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for 2 years; and

The Defendant confirmed whether only the Defendant works in Smarkets throughout the framework and tried to take money and valuables with lethal weapons. Considering that the Defendant appears to have planned a crime against a victim who is relatively vulnerable to the crime, that the Defendant committed the crime of this case with knife and committed the crime, and that it appears that the Defendant’s social relationship is unclear, a sentence of imprisonment to the Defendant is inevitable.

However, the punishment shall be determined by deviating from the lower limit of the recommended range in the sentencing guidelines, considering the fact that the defendant is the primary offender, the defendant's special robbery crimes are committed in the attempted crime, and the defendant both confessions and reflects the crimes in this case.

Judges Yang Sung-tae

Judges Shin Young-ju