폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(상습재물손괴등)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Before determining the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, we examine ex officio the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual destruction and damage, etc.) among each of the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant damage to property”).
The crime of habitually destroying and damaging property under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established when a person who has a habitive wall of causing property damage commits the crime of causing property damage.
According to the records, it is recognized that the defendant had been sentenced to a fine of up to 500,00 won on July 22, 2013, as a result of the damage of a taxi on June 3, 2013 on around 03:50, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of up to 11 times of criminal punishment due to the damage of property of the same criminal, the damage of public property, etc. in the Gangseo branch court of the Chuncheon District Court.
However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was subject to five criminal punishment from around 2006 to around 2008 for the same offense; and (b) was not subject to any criminal punishment for about five years thereafter; (c) the Defendant did not commit the same offense in addition to the crime of causing property damage on June 3, 2013 until the crime of causing property damage was committed; and (d) the crime of causing property damage was committed after two years after the date of criminal punishment as the crime of causing property damage on June 3, 2013; and (e) it is difficult to conclude that the crime of causing property damage in this case was due to the occurrence of the Defendant’s damage caused by the Defendant’s damage to property; and (e) there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
3. According to the conclusion, since the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual destruction and damage, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is again decided after pleading.