특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years and by a fine of 150,000 won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts contain a larceny crime which was not committed by the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in this case, it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment and a fine of one hundred and fifty thousand won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the term "Habitual Crimes" refers to the so-called crime of excessive shape, which is to be applied to a single crime when the same kind of act is habitually repeated. Thus, if multiple acts of the same kind are recognized as habituality, one of them must be punished by including the most serious crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1359 delivered on July 14, 1998). Each of the larceny and special larceny of this case is habitually repeated, and thus, it is reasonable to view that it does not constitute a concurrent crime of habitual larceny, but rather, a single crime is established by combining the remaining acts of the same kind of crime of habitual special larceny, the statutory punishment of which is most severe.
(See Supreme Court Decision 75Do1184 delivered on May 27, 1975. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of habitual special larceny, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since it was recognized that the Defendant stolen another’s property four times from September 22, 2013 to October 30, 2013 as stated in the lower judgment.
3. Conclusion, the defendant.