Damage and Damage to Water

【Criminal Power】

On December 13, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by the Suwon District Court for one year and six months, and on July 22, 2015, the same court sentenced ten months to imprisonment with labor for habitual larceny, etc. on July 22, 2015, and on August 17, 2016, the Seoul High Court sentenced two years and six months to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and completed the execution on September 12, 2018

1. Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act;

At around 15:20 on September 28, 2018, the Defendant tried to steals with a total of 21,160 won of the market price, such as 3 illness, Dongdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-do-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, but failed to commit it with the wind that is discovered to employees of the security team of the above store. Accordingly, the Defendant was sentenced two or more times to larceny, etc., and tried to steal another’s property habitually within three years after the execution of the sentence was completed.

2. Destruction and damage of special property;

On October 6, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 00:06, around 00:06, in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government lightporo 846, the first story underground of the subway station in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, 846, in which it is difficult to maintain its livelihood, and (b) in front of the ATM flag installed by the injured bank, the injured bank, in the above place, brought about one cement block (26 cm, 19 cm, 10 cm in height, 10 cm in height), which is a dangerous object prepared in advance, in hand, putting the cement block (26 cm, 19 cm in height, 10 cm in height), carried the repair cost on several occasions to ensure that the repair cost is 936,320 won.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and destroyed another's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Written statements of D;

1. ATM photographs, cement block photographs, and theft photographs;

1. A receipt for verifying the damaged goods;

1. Previous conviction: Criminal records and investigation reports (the attachment of a criminal record, such as a repeated crime of a suspect, and confirmation of the date of release from the court): Habituality: The criminal records of the criminal defendant, such as criminal records, have reached seven times, and the criminal records of the criminal defendant have not reached seven times, and the criminal records of the larceny have been committed again at least ten days after the execution of the final punishment was completed, and the criminal records of the

Application of Statutes

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

Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act ( point of attempted habitual larceny), Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act ( point of destroying and damaging special objects, and choice of imprisonment)

Article 35 of each Criminal Code [Article 35 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which ends on September 12, 2018]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is more severe punishment and concurrent crimes within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. The grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months, but not more than 25 years;

2. Scope of recommending sentences according to the application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

[Scope of Recommendation] The basic area (two years to four years) of the theft type 2 (Habitual Larceny) under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act

【Special Convicted Persons】

(b) Special damage and damage;

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (Cumulative Offense, Special Destruction, etc.) (Special Destruction, etc.) basic area (six months to one year and two months), such as repeated crimes, special damage, etc.

(c) Scope of recommendations based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Two years to four years and seven months;

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months;

The crime of larceny in this case is not good in that the Defendant committed the crime of larceny in this case by failing to throw away habit even though he had a large number of larceny criminal records, and committed the crime of larceny in this case even though he was committed a repeated crime due to the same crime. Some of such crimes are committed, and it is not good in that he committed the crime of larceny in this case, under the idea that he would enter prison again. These circumstances are unfavorable to the Defendant. The crime of larceny in this case is not significant in value of damaged goods, one crime is limited to one time, and the crime is limited to one time, and there was no substantial damage due to the attempted crime. These circumstances are favorable to the Defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, and relationship with the victim. The motive, means and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined by getting out of the lower limit of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines and the same as the order.

Judges Gin-type money

Judges Shin Jae-ho