절도등
We reverse the judgment of the court below.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
An application for compensation order by an applicant for compensation.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.
The court held that each appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated and tried, and each offense against the defendant in the judgment of the court below is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.
3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that the above reasons for reversal of authority exist, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.
[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is the same as that of the judgment below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;
1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. Article 32(1)2 and 32(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits, etc. of Application for Compensation Order (the applicant for compensation seeking payment of KRW 9 million, but ① in relation to the claim of KRW 8.6 million among them, theft from cash in this case acquired possession of cash in the machine against the will of the manager of cash withdrawal machines, so it is reasonable to deem that the victim is AMF bank, the manager of cash withdrawal machines, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do997, Jul. 28, 1995).