특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The decision shall be made ex officio prior to the decision on the grounds for appeal.
In the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to change the name of the defendant to "Habitual larceny", and Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes "Article 332 of the Criminal Act" from among applicable provisions of the Act, and since this court permitted the amendment, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows after pleading.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
For the purpose of law
1. Relevant Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act and Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;
1. In light of the fact that the Defendant, who was sentenced ten times or more as a thief for a larceny crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes, committed repeatedly the instant larceny crime by using a manual similar to that of the previous one during the period of repeated crimes for which three years have not passed since he/she was sentenced to imprisonment for the last larceny, even though he/she had been sentenced to three years as a thief for a larceny crime, and in particular, again committed the instant larceny by using a manual similar to that of the previous one during the period of repeated crimes for which two months have not passed since the Defendant’s liability cannot be deemed to be less and thus,
However, the fact that the defendant was committed in the course of committing the crime, and the mistake is divided, the fact that the defendant was committed in an economically weak state, and the age of 71 years is now old.