beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.08.27 2015재고단19

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The number of seized mother and child(lusurel Nos. 9) and the color tag No. 1,000,000 square meters.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed a crime, such as a hat and mast, with the mind that it is difficult to cover living expenses due to the absence of a certain occupation; (b) attempted to steals another person's things; and (c) colored the subject of the crime.

On February 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) returned to find the subject of the commission of the crime on February 24, 2014; (b) discovered the E Spp-type vehicle owned by the victim D in Ulsan-gu Cudio parking lot; (c) opened a stud door that has not been corrected; and (d) cut off 3.50,000 won of cash owned by the victim when entering the said vehicle and keeping the goods.

In addition, from October 20, 2013 to April 26, 2014, the Defendant habitually stolen or attempted to steals property worth KRW 15,587,000 over 14 times from around October 20, 201 to around April 26, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Each statement of F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, and G;

1. Each protocol of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Each criminal's place, occurrence report, investigation report and internal investigation report;

1. Habituality of judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes that recognize dampness in light of the method of crime and frequency of crime in the judgment;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Articles 332, 329, and 342 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. When the crime of this case was committed during the period of the suspension of the execution of a new type of crime for the reason of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, and the content of the crime was habitually stolen or attempted to steals another's property, and the defendant cannot be exempted from the corresponding punishment.

However, the Constitutional Court made a decision of unconstitutionality with respect to Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on habitual larceny.