On December 22, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Eastern District Court on April 2, 2009 and three years at the Seoul Southern District Court on February 12, 2012 and completed the enforcement of the final sentence on February 12, 2012.

On December 26, 2013, at around 20:12, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft in front of the red ginseng sales store operated by the Victim E Co., Ltd. in the subway line 1 Station in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, by Saeng-gu, by taking advantage of the gap in F’s supervision, which caused the sale of the store, brought about a theft of the amount equivalent to KRW 1.80,000,000,000 on the display stand.

As a result, the defendant was sentenced to two or more penalties for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and habitually stolen another's property within three years after the execution is completed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Each investigation report (Evidence Nos. 7-9) and initial investigation report;

1. On-site CCTV outputs, suspect transportation card log photographs, CCTV in a set of five sets and time of data from time of initial investigation, and photographs of the same product as the damaged product;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiry into criminal and investigation records, each investigation report (Evidence Nos. 14 and 25), each written judgment (No. 15-17) and the current status of individual identification and acceptance;

1. Habitualness in the holding: Recognizing the dampness of the larceny on the grounds of the same description as in the part of the "Judgment on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel"

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the choice of punishment: Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act;

2. Aggravation of repeated crimes: The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act;

3. Discretionary mitigation: Consideration in favor of the reasons for the sentence under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following reasons for the sentence):

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

It was true that the defendant stolen 2 Hegel's her own possession of the victim, but it is only a crime that has been committed by contingency while under the influence of alcohol, and it is not a crime that has been caused by the development of a theft habit inherent in the defendant.

2. Determination

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant was subject to criminal punishment on April 16, 1963 when he was under the same age of 16, but was still subject to criminal punishment on the same age of 16, and on the grounds that he was under the same age of 16, 2 years of suspended execution, 8 months of imprisonment on June 8, 196, 167, and 10 months of imprisonment on June 22, 197, and 197. The defendant was also subject to criminal punishment on the same age of 2 years and 1.6 months of imprisonment on October 7, 1982, and 1.6 years of suspended execution, and 2 years of imprisonment on May 13, 197, and 1.6 years of 2 years of 2 years of 3 years of 4 years of 4 years of 4 years of 196, respectively.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment for not less than three years but not more than 25 years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Form 1 of habitual and repeated thief thief (general habitual and repeated thief)

[Special Mitigation] Ad hoc Inspector

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Reduction Area ( Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than six months but not more than three years);

[Extent of Recommendation] From three to four years (Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the upper and lower limit of the sentence range shall be increased by 1.5 times each, in cases falling under Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and accordingly the scope of the recommended sentence is inconsistent with the applicable sentences by legal mitigation, so the lower limit shall be governed by the applicable sentences

3. Determination of sentence: Three years of imprisonment; and

Although the Defendant had already been sentenced several times due to the crime of habitual larceny of the same kind, the Defendant committed the instant crime again on February 12, 2012 at the end of 1 year and 10 months, which is within the repeated crime period, after having completed the last sentence on February 12, 2012, and again committed the instant crime. Therefore, it is inevitable to sentence heavier punishment than the previous penal level.

However, on the other hand, the crime of this case is limited to one time, the degree of damage is relatively minor, not only planned, but also the remaining contingent crimes committed by the defendant who has lost self-defense while under the influence of a certain size of alcohol; the defendant's dual punishment appears to be a crime; the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant; the defendant sent the defendant's wrong choice repeatedly from the time of f6 years of age to the detention center; and again sent the defendant's wrong choice again again again again again, the defendant's serious anti-competences that did not reach the age of 66 years of age; there are many favorable circumstances to the defendant; it is determined in consideration of all the sentencing conditions revealed in the trial of this case, such as the defendant's character and behavior, environment, family relationship, strong condition, means and consequence of the crime; and the circumstances after the crime, and the above sentencing guidelines are set forth in consideration of the degree of punishment heavier punishment as above.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Yang Young-young

Judges Park Jae-min