특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.
1,000,000 square meters (No. 1) of a seized stock farm.
1. The sentencing of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.
Article 5-4(5) main sentence of Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 13717, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “Specialization Act”) provides that “where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for a crime under Articles 329 through 331, 333 through 336, 340, and 362 of the Criminal Act, or for the attempts thereof, again commits such crime, and is punished as a repeated offense, the person shall be punished aggravatingly as follows; and subparagraph 1 of the same paragraph provides that “where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act (including an attempted crime), he/she shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than
On the other hand, Article 8 of the Criminal Code provides that "the general provisions of this Act shall apply to crimes as provided by other Acts and subordinate statutes, except as provided otherwise by such Acts and subordinate statutes."
The main text of Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Special Cases of the Domination of Dominious Crimes should be regarded as a special provision on aggravation of repeated crimes under other statutes.
In the text of Article 5-4(5) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, the main sentence of Article 5-4(5) of the Aggravated Punishment Act (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment”) provides that “a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for a crime under Articles 329 through 331, 333 through 336, and 340 and 362 of the Criminal Act, or attempts to commit such crime, shall be punished by the same punishment as that of paragraphs (1) through (4) shall be punished.” However, Supreme Court Decision 82Do1865 Decided October 12, 1982 ruled that it is reasonable to determine the applicable punishment within the scope of the term of punishment imposed again for a repeated crime under the statutory penalty under each subparagraph of Article 5-4(5) of the Aggravated Punishment Act prior to the amendment.
Article 5-4(5) of the Aggravated Punishment Act.