특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The court below rejected the application for compensation order filed by the applicant for compensation in the court below. Since the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation order pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the above dismissed part was finalized as it is.
Therefore, among the judgment below, the rejection of the above compensation order is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.
2. The sentence of imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
3. The Defendant recognized that all of the instant crimes were committed, thereby contravening the mistake.
After the defendant was divorced from his spouse, he seems to have caused the crime of this case.
These points are favorable to the defendant.
On the other hand, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to the theft of the same law. In light of the fact that the victims of the instant crime are many victims, the amount of damage is not large, and the Defendant forged and uses a motor vehicle number plate to avoid tracking by investigation agencies, it is not good to commit the instant crime.
In addition to the return of some damage in the investigation process, the defendant did not endeavor to recover damage, so many victims want to punish the defendant.
These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.
As above, comprehensively taking account of the sentencing circumstances, including the circumstances favorable to the defendant and unfavorable conditions, the age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, etc. of this case as well as the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are indicated in the arguments and records, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the fact that there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.