특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(장물)
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the habitual judgment of the crime of the acquisition of stolen property, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the habitual judgment of the crime of the acquisition of stolen property, even though each of the crimes in this case committed by the prosecutor was based on the habit of the acquisition
In addition, the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.
2. A prosecutor’s misapprehension of the legal principles or an assertion of mistake of facts cited in the following: (a) the Defendant has a habit of acquiring stolen goods; (b) each of the crimes of this case was caused by such habit; (c) the Defendant was punished by larceny, etc. several times; and (d) on January 19, 201, the Seoul Western District Court sentenced one year and six months to imprisonment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (the thief) in Seoul Western District Court on January 19, 201; (c) the Defendant acquired stolen goods on seven occasions during a short period of time after the Defendant completed a convict life due to the said habitual larceny; and (d) all acquired stolen goods are precious metals which are readily re
However, in light of the records, the facts cited by the court below are sufficiently recognized, and in addition, the above habitual larceny criminal records stolen goods, such as wallets and visibility, by opening the right at the wall of the defendant, and it is difficult to find out the facts similar to each of the crimes of this case, which purchased stolen precious metal, such as applicable provisions and the nature of the crime, the means and method of the crime, the tendency of the crime, the type of the crime, etc. In addition, each of the crimes of this case, which the defendant stolen goods from E, was requested to purchase them seven times by requesting the purchase of the goods if they were stolen from E, and they did not obtain stolen goods from others than E. Thus, the defendant is short.