특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the Defendant alleged to have a ground for statutory mitigation voluntarily surrenders to an investigative agency, the sentence against the Defendant ought to be mitigated in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the assertion of unfair sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the records on the assertion of statutory mitigation grounds, although the defendant can recognize the fact that he voluntarily surrenders to the police after the crime of this case, since mitigation of punishment under Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act constitutes a reason for voluntary mitigation, even if the court below did not reduce the sentence, it cannot be said that there was an error in the judgment of the court below, and this court also decided not to reduce the sentence against the defendant on the ground that the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the police, taking into account
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. There are favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the Defendant voluntarily surrendered to the police after the instant crime, the confession of all the instant crimes, the fact that stolen property was collected or seized from the victims, and the Defendant is expected to be able to improve his personality and behavior at the age of 23 years old.
However, even though there are three times the criminal records of criminal punishment for the same crime (which had been previously subject to juvenile protective disposition several times), the criminal defendant was finally committed habitually during the repeated crime period in which the punishment had not yet been executed, and again committed the habitual larceny crime of this case on three occasions in the course of the repeated crime, and the unlicensed driving of this case was also reduced twice. Among the crimes committed jointly with co-defendant B and I of the court below, the criminal defendant seems to have led, and among the stolen property, the value of two vehicles among the stolen property is significant, but still the victims.