beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.05.28 2015재고단8

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 27, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. by the Incheon District Court and was released on June 30, 2005 during the execution of the sentence.

7. 20. A person for whom the period of parole was passed, and on January 16, 2013, the Daejeon High Court sentenced five years to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which became final and conclusive around that time.

1. The defendant is habitually;

A. At around 14:00 on April 13, 2006, 200, Down-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City Do Do 201, the key contained in the entrance oil delivery machine using a cresh in the presence of the victim E, thereby opening an entrance and opening the entrance, and opening the entrance, and putting the victim's wall containing one copy of the victim's resident registration certificate and one hundred thousand won in cash, and putting the victim's wall in the victim's locker and theft it over 25 times in total until December 8, 200 of the same year, as shown in the list of crimes in the annexed sheet;

B. At around 14:30 on May 4, 2006, the victim H located in Ansan-si G 101 and opened a entrance that was not corrected at the victim H’s residence located in Ansan-gu G 101, and cut off the cash owned by the victim, which was located in the inner wall, and stolen it.

Summary of Evidence

Where the record of a case subject to review is already destroyed due to the expiration of the preservation period and it is inevitable to completely restore the record, the propriety of the decision subject to review shall be determined by comprehensively assessing the evidence in the original judgment, which can be known by the remaining data collected, including the written judgment, and the value of the newly submitted evidence in the trial procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2154, Sept. 24, 2004). If the record is not preserved as in this case, the propriety of the request for review shall be examined based on the data that can be secured to the maximum extent at the present stage.