특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was subject to multiple criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and committed the crime of this case during the suspension period of execution due to larceny, and that the defendant intrudes another person's residence and steals bail and thus it is difficult to recognize the habituality of larceny as well as that of the previous crime, the court below acquitted the defendant of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize it.
2. Determination
A. On February 10, 1997, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2 million by larceny, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on the charges of this case. On September 22, 199, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 2 million by imprisonment with prison labor in the Seoul East East District Court on September 22, 199, and 8 months by larceny, etc. at the same court on November 20, 200, and 8 months by the same court on April 19, 206, respectively. On December 24, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 5 million by the same court on December 24, 2007. On November 30, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 30, 2012.
At around 18:00 on May 31, 2013, the Defendant opened a gate at the victim D’s house located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and entered the entrance, and cut off with three 14K posts in U.S. market value, the victim’s possession in the crepite and the labb, three Bags, one Baget, one Baget, one Baget, one 14K Jink-ro, four Moget, four Moget, and one 14K Jin-rog, and 70,000 won in cash located in a small room.
Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen another's property.
B. As to the above facts charged, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below held that each of the above facts charged is recognized as having been guilty, but the above thief.