2. Determination

A. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., even considering the favorable sentencing factors of the Defendant, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable compared to the degree of the Defendant’s responsibility.

(1) The crime of this case is committed in light of the method and frequency of the planned and professional criminal act, and the amount of damage, etc., the Defendant committed the crime of this case committed the theft or attempted to steals money and valuables over 15 times under several methods, such as: (a) the Defendant colored a restaurant or commercial building, and opening a door with the dracker prepared in advance, and opening the door with the goods; and (b) the commission of the crime.

Dodice Defendant consumed most of the stolen money and valuables as living expenses, etc. after committing the crime, and did not make efforts to recover particular damage so far.

Referencely, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had been sentenced several times of punishment for the same crime, but has committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime after the final release from office.

Applicant The scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee is “at least two years and not more than four years and not more than six months,” and the lower court appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of the scope of recommending punishment and the unique circumstances of this case within the scope of statutory applicable sentences, which have undergone mitigation and discretionary mitigation.

(v) The defendant asserts that the court below erred in determining a sentence different from the majority of the jurors' recommendations for a participatory trial; however, the jury's opinion on sentencing is clear in light of Article 46 (5) and (4) of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials as it does not bind the court, and thus, the above argument is not acceptable.

Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1670 Decided April 11, 2013