특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant committed the instant crime due to a mental or physical disorder, such as a mixless disorder, and it does not commit the instant crime on the face of theft habits.
2. Determination
A. Habituality in larceny refers to the habit of repeated larceny, and the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime in the same case must be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of such criminal records and the frequency of the crime in the same case.
On the other hand, since an offender was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder at the time of the crime, the habituality of the offender is not uniformly denied.
It is only one of the various circumstances in which the circumstances of mental and physical disability, etc., such as mental and physical disability, are materials to determine whether habituality is denied.
Therefore, it cannot be concluded that a perpetrator was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder at the time of the crime that he/she committed, solely on the ground that he/she was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder, and that the crime is not habitually realized, and that habituality can be recognized by taking into account other circumstances, and if there is a case in which the part of mental disorder such as mental disorder cannot be considered as a material to deny habituality of the offender, it may be a material to deny habituality of the offender
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). B.
The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, the Defendant had a record of criminal punishment on nine occasions prior to the instant crime, prior to the instant crime, and the Defendant was sentenced to suspended sentence of larceny on two occasions within the last ten years, and the Defendant was sentenced to suspended sentence of larceny on two occasions, and was sentenced to one year and six months due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) on April 7, 2009, the instant crime constitutes a repeated offense, and the Defendant was subject to previous punishment.