2. B

3. C.

【Criminal Power】

Defendant A was sentenced to one year and six months by imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on October 7, 2010, and the execution of the sentence was completed on December 10, 201, and the previous department was more than six times.

Defendant B was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Seoul Central District Court on April 26, 2007, and on September 2, 2010, Defendant B was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the Seoul Central District Court on September 2, 201 and completed the execution of the sentence on December 7, 2013, and the previous department was more than

Defendant C was sentenced to three years in Seoul High Court on February 5, 2008 for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and was sentenced to one year and six months in Seoul Southern District Court on October 14, 201 for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc., of Specific Crimes, etc., and was sentenced to one year and six months in Seoul Southern District Court on March 14, 201 and completed the sentence on March 4, 2013

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendants habitually stolen another’s property or failed to bring about a criminal attempt, as follows.

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

On January 25, 2014, around 06:18, the Defendants reported the platform of 177 subway No. 6 of the subway No. 177 underground, Defendant C, and Defendant B accessed the victim E who was a driver under the influence of alcohol, and Defendant A and Defendant B moved out one cell phone of the victim’s market price equivalent to KRW 900,000,000,000,000,000,000 won in cash owned by the victim, credit card No. 2, 2, 3,000,000,000,000 won, and one identification card No. 50,000,000,000 won in market price.

As a result, the defendants stolen the victim's property together.

2. The joint principal offenses committed by the defendant A, B, and 2 persons in secret name;

On February 2, 2014, from around 00:33 to 00:50, Defendant A, and two persons in non-name cards were on the platform of the 17 subway 2 line underground along with the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Seomun-gu, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and from around 00:2, Defendant A and one person in non-name cards was on the network around the region, and Defendant B and one person in non-name cards was on the part of the victim F, who was under diving, was on the part of the victim, who was on the part of the victim F, and was on the part of the victim, who was on the part of the locker, was on the part of the victim, who was on the part of the locker. However, at the time, the victim was on the part of the locker.

As a result, the two defendants A, B, and B were trying to steal the victim's property by combining them, but did not bring about such intent and did not commit an attempted crime.

3. The sole criminal conduct of Defendant A;

At around 06:00 on February 16, 2014, Defendant A cut off one cell phone of 700,000 won at the platform of 160 subway Nos. 2 under the ground of Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and the victim G's cot shop where he was seated and was down.

4. Defendant C’s sole criminal conduct

A. Defendant C, around July 11, 2013, around 22:57, at the subway station of 122-ro 5 subway line 122-ro 5, Jungdong-dong, Jungdong-gu, Seoul, and at the 4-ro station platform of Jungdong-gu, Seoul, Defendant C, who was seated, did not do so, but did not commit an attempted act.

B. At around 00:50 on February 20, 2014, Defendant C: (a) laid off one cell phone with the victim’s market value at KRW 800,000,000,000 from the right side part of the victim’s cell phone located in the front line of 8:0:0,000 from the Chang-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, in the front line where Defendant C was in operation near 2:5 subway lines of 8:0,000; and (b) the victim I was under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Part of H’s legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to E, F, G, and I;

1. Report on internal investigation (Evidence Nos. 3) and each investigation report (Evidence No. 14, 36, 37, 38, 39, 44, 64);

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Each reference to criminal records and each investigation report (Evidence Nos. 18, 33, 60, 61, 62);

【Habitualness】

In light of the records of each crime committed by the Defendants, the method and frequency of the crimes, and the fact that the same crime was repeated in several times during the period of repeated crimes after the Defendants were released, each commission of larceny is recognized.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 331(2) and (1), 342, and 329 of the Criminal Act (generally, choice of limited imprisonment)

B. Defendant B: Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 331(2) and (1), and 342 of the Criminal Act (generally, choice of limited imprisonment)

C. Defendant C: Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 331(2) and (1), 342, and 329 of the Criminal Act (generally, choice of limited imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendants: Articles 35 and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act ( Taking into account the favorable circumstances, etc. among the reasons for sentencing following the sentencing)

Reasons for sentencing

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant A

[Determination of Punishment] thief crime group, habitual thief and repeated thief, and Category 1 (general habitual thief and repeated thief)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of not less than 2 years but not more than 4 years (Basic Area)

B. Defendant B and C

[Determination of Punishment] thief crime group, habitual thief and repeated thief, and Category 1 (general habitual thief and repeated thief)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Extent of Recommendation] 3 to 6 years (the punishment shall be aggravated by 1.5 times the upper and lower limit in the basic area of imprisonment (at least 2 years but not more than 4 years), falling under Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

2. Determination of sentence and the reasons therefor;

(a) Determination of sentence;

1) Defendant A: Imprisonment for 2 years;

2) Defendant B and C: Imprisonment for 4 years

(b) Grounds;

1) Defendant A

Considering the fact that Defendant A has already been subject to criminal punishment several times for the same kind of crime, the same crime is committed within the period of repeated crime, and the victim E does not recover from damage, it is inevitable to strictly punish Defendant A.

However, in light of the circumstances favorable to Defendant A, such as the fact that Defendant A recognized all of the crimes and reflects his mistake in depth, and the fact that damaged goods were returned to Victim G, etc., the statutory punishment shall be determined within the scope of mitigation of the statutory punishment, by taking into account all of the factors of sentencing specified in the trial process of this case, such as the age, occupation, health, family relationship, health status, living environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime.

2) Considering the fact that Defendant B andC Defendants had been already subject to criminal punishment several times for the same kind of crime, but no more than one year has passed since the execution of the final sentence was terminated, and thus, they started to commit the same kind of crime; the victim E does not recover damage; and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that if they were sentenced two or more times to habitually larceny and again commit the same crime within the period of repeated crime, the short term of the statutory punishment should be aggravated by twice. In light of the above, it is inevitable to punish the above Defendants with severe punishment.

However, the above defendants recognize all crimes and reflect their mistakes in depth, and the fact that damaged goods were returned to victims I are considered favorable to the above defendants, and the above defendants' age, occupation, health, family relationship, health status, living environment, motive and circumstances leading to the crime, etc. shall be determined within the scope of mitigated statutory punishment by taking into account all sentencing factors specified in the trial process of this case, such as the above defendants' age, occupation, health, family relationship, health status, living environment, etc.

The part not guilty (Defendant C)

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant C habitually stolen the victim H with one half of the market value of 110,000 won (24 km) at the victim’s own market value and one cell phone with 700,000 won at the market value.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, at around 22:31:53 on July 11, 2013, the victim was divingd in the influence of alcohol at 8-4 (on the platform 1-1-1 of subway 5: the Defendant C, at around 22:46:14 on the same day, at around 22:46:14 on the same day, the victim was able to steals with the victim who was diving (the Defendant C himself recognizes). In light of the fact that the Defendant C committed the larceny of a similar method against the victim under the influence of alcohol even before, Defendant C committed the larceny of a similar method against the victim, such as the victim’s reflector and the mobile phone, as described in this part of the facts charged, Defendant C is doubtful.

B. However, in a criminal trial, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial, and the finding of guilt must be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant cannot be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1713, May 26, 2006). Theft leads to the transfer of factual control between the moment when he/she acquires possession of another's property and the infringement of the owner's possession.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record of this case (i.e., (i) the fact that Defendant C took a sex and platform near the platform where the victim was divingd, can only be confirmed, and the circumstance that Defendant C acquired possession by cutting off the victim’s Ban and mobile phone, and (ii) the victim did so on the day of the crime of this case, and (iii) the victim did not have any possibility of loss of the victim’s cell phone or loss from the subway platform (the victim was b2:31:53, Jul. 11, 2013; 200:37:23, Jul. 12, 2013; 200:37:23, Oct. 12, 2013; 200:

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the number of larceny charges in this part of the facts charged falls under a case where there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) against

Judge Senior Professor

Judges Park Jong-young