특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The lower court’s imprisonment (three years and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. First, we examine the progress of the lower court.
The Defendant filed for a retrial on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality on the law applied to the judgment subject to a retrial [Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2013Ra331 Decided December 19, 2013].
Although Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) applied to the judgment subject to a retrial was not included in the decision of unconstitutionality, the lower court commenced a retrial on the grounds that it constitutes “a final and conclusive judgment of conviction based on the legal provisions determined by the Constitution” under Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act.
The prosecutor applied for amendments to the amendment of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act by changing the name of the crime into “Habitual Night Larceny” and “Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act” and “Articles 330, 329, and 35 of the Criminal Act” into “Articles 332, 330, 329, and 35 of the Criminal Act” and the lower court sentenced the judgment after granting permission and proceeding the deliberation.
B. Furthermore, we examine the reasoning for sentencing of the lower court.
The lower court: (a) deemed that the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) on November 6, 2009, and was released from a prison on January 2, 2013, and for three months of repeated period, even though he was still under repeated period; (b) it was a case where the Defendant opened a window with an empty house of a house and opened and opened a window that has not been removed or set up a ductating the door on January 2, 2013; and (c) it was a case where he stolen property worth KRW 41,680,000 in total; (d) the several methods are professional, planned and have a little amount of damage; and (d) the Defendant was not even recovered from the damage; and (d) was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and more than that of the original judgment (four years of imprisonment) in consideration of favorable circumstances in which the Defendant recognized all of the instant criminal acts and