특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years;
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (four years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s grounds for appeal.
In the trial at the court of the first instance, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content that the name of the charge against the defendant is "Habitual larceny" from "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" from among the applicable provisions of the Act to "Article 332 of the Criminal Act", and since this court permitted it, the part of the judgment below
3. In conclusion, the court below reversed the part of the judgment below against the defendant under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and rendered a decision again as follows.
【The grounds of the judgment of the court below for retrial】 The criminal facts recognized by the court in charge of the criminal facts and summary of the evidence and the summary of the evidence are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, except where the "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)" in the second criminal facts of the judgment of the court below is deemed as "Habitual special larceny", and the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)" in the third criminal facts of the court below is deemed as "Habitual larceny
Application of Statutes
1. Articles 332, 331(1) and (2), and 329 of the Criminal Act of the relevant law concerning criminal facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Do1184, May 27, 1975)
2. The crime of this case on the reason of sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Code among repeated criminal offenders is habitually committed by the defendant, and the empty factory is inside five times in collaboration with Co-Defendant A of the original judgment.