특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
The judgment below
Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
evidence of seizure.
1. According to the records of this case, the following facts can be acknowledged. A.
The Defendant was habitually prosecuted for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) with the effect that the victims had stolen goods, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of committing the thief other than the 83 larcenys listed in the attached Table No. 113 among the 113 charges, and sentenced the Defendant to 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor.
B. On the ground of unfair sentencing, the Defendant appealed against the lower judgment on the ground of erroneous determination of facts regarding the acquitted portion. On September 2, 2010, the appellate court accepted the prosecutor’s appeal partially and reversed the lower judgment, and sentenced the Defendant to four years by applying Articles 5-4(1) and 330 and 329 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the said judgment subject to retrial became final and conclusive on September 10, 2010.
C. On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 329 of the Criminal Act, among Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, is unconstitutional.
On June 1, 2015, there is a ground for retrial under Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act in the part based on Article 329 of the Criminal Act among the judgment subject to a retrial, and the judgment subject to a retrial rendered a single sentence by deeming that the above criminal facts and the remaining criminal facts, which have grounds for a retrial, constitute a single crime. As such, the court rendered a decision
After that, the decision to commence the above review became final and conclusive.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor (not guilty part) - When examining the use of transportation cards against the defendant of mistake, the defendant appears to have been located near the place of crime, the defendant identified and taken photographs of the place of crime by accompanying the police officer, and seized them from the defendant.