송유관안전관리법위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
1. Judgment on the grounds for appeal (as to the acquittal in the judgment of the original court)
A. The summary of the charge of attempted special larceny of this part is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s joint with E and the person in unsound name, and the same month;
9. It would be the fact that the oil was stolen from the oil pipelines managed by dopco, a corporation, which was laid adjacent to the K Y adjacent Y, but did not commit an attempted crime.
B. As to this, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charges under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that each of the above charges of attempted special larceny constitutes a special larceny comprehensively, together with the special larceny charges that the lower court found the Defendant guilty, and that each of the above charges of attempted special larceny was absorbed into the special larceny that led to the total number of pages and did not constitute a separate crime of attempted special larceny.
(However, the court below found the defendant guilty of special larceny as stated in its holding in relation to the crime of this kind, and did not decide the defendant not guilty separately from the disposition.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, each attempted special larceny as stated in the above facts charged constitutes a single and continuous special larceny, since the act committed as a single and continuous intention for a certain period of time constitutes a single comprehensive crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Do2612, Feb. 23, 1971). The part of the court below's decision to the same purport is justified.
However, each of the special larceny charges described in the above facts charged constitutes one of the special larceny crimes, which the court below found guilty, together with the crime of special larceny.