특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and six months) of the original judgment is too unreasonable.
2. The court below, ex officio, made a mistake that did not properly specify the facts constituting the crime by citing the attached list of crimes in the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment but not attaching the attached list.
Since these errors affected the judgment, the judgment of the court below is no longer able to be maintained.
3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and the following decision is rendered after oral argument.
Criminal facts
The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the court is as follows, except for the addition of "the list of crimes" to facts constituting an offense, and the summary of the facts and evidence is as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below.
Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is quoted as it is.
Application of Statutes
1. Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 329, 330, 331 (1), and 342 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts and Articles 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for which the punishment is chosen
1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant confessions all of the instant crimes and reflects them, the damaged goods are returned or minor, the victim D, E, I, and F agreed with the victim I, and the victim I did not want to be punished against the Defendant.
However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant by misrepresenting his employees, etc. in his funeral hall, and was committed by thefting or attempted to steals goods after discovering the address of the victims who have taken funeral ceremony. The crime of this case was committed by the defendant. The criminal records of the same crime were several times, and the punishment was imposed on some of them. The recommended sentence of the Sentencing Commission by the Supreme Court was three years from the imprisonment of year and June.