재물손괴등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The punishment of the accused shall be determined by one year and two months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Erroring facts (as to the part on the 2016 Highest 871), the Defendant tried to satise the instant piece of lecture and to return it to the State after having satisfy and satisfying the instant piece of lecture.
Therefore, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain illegal acquisition as to the negligence.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion that the lower court was aware of the circumstances cited in the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant’s assertion that he was intending to commit the instant lectures and to take a book, etc., the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant would have been demoted with the intent of unlawful acquisition at the time of the instant case with the intent of unlawful acquisition, contrary to the allegations by the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. The Defendant had a record of having been punished several times, including punishment for the same crime. In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being sentenced to imprisonment with labor for ten months on June 15, 2015, and committed each of the instant crimes on January 5, 2016 when the enforcement of the sentence was completed on January 5, 2016, and was during the repeated crime period.
On the other hand, the fact that the defendant generally recognizes and reflects his mistake properly, the defendant agreed with some victims in the original trial, and further agreed with some victims in the trial.
In addition, in full view of the circumstances of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the age, character and conduct, and environment of the Defendant, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is too excessive.