특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the lower court's sentencing (limited to four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio judgment.
In the trial of the case, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the name of the defendant as "Habitual larceny" in the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and the applicable provisions of Acts to "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and Article 329 of the Criminal Act.
The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.
The judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Article 332 of the relevant Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 332 of the multiple-choice Act, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act;
1. The Defendant, with the reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Aggravation of Cumulative Offense Act, committed the instant crime four times a week from the date of release on June 3, 2013, even though he/she was subject to criminal punishment several times for the same kind of crime, and the amount of damage is also considerable.
This is disadvantageous to the defendant.
However, it is favorable to the defendant that the defendant led to all of the crimes of this case, that substantial part of the damaged goods was returned to the victims, and that the victim L did not want the punishment of the defendant.
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court has violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the case of 2013HunBa343 decided November 26, 2015.