(b) Acquisition of stolen property;

2. A. B

3. (a) C.

4. (b) D.

Law Firm, Attorney Z (for the defendant B)

Law Firm, Attorney K (Defendant D)

The number of detention days prior to the issuance of this judgment shall be 65 days, including each of the above punishment against Defendant A, B, and C.

The seized cotton shall be confiscated from the defendant 10,00,00 square meters (Evidence 1), 1,00 square meters (Evidence 2), 1,00 square meters (Evidence 3), 1,00 square meters (Evidence 4,000), 1,00 large-scale 1,00 square meters (Evidence 6, 1,000 (Evidence 7), 1,000 color 1,00 color 4,00 square meters (Evidence 9), 4,000 (Evidence 11), 1,000), 1,000 (Evidence 11), 4,000 (Evidence 12), 4,000), 1,000 (Evidence 13), 14,000 (Evidence 14,00), 14,000 (Evidence 14, 15,000).

1. Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of 6 months on September 28, 197 with prison labor for a fixed term of 10,000 won; imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of 5 months on February 8, 1984; imprisonment with prison labor for a special larceny of 8 months at the Busan Central District Court; imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 8,000 won on August 22, 1985; imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 3,000 won on August 21, 1991; imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 9,000 won on March 19, 196; imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 1,000 Busan Central District Court for a period of 1,000 won; imprisonment with labor for a period of 9,000 won on March 21, 199>

2. At around 21:30 on the same day, Defendant D acquired stolen goods after being aware of the fact that: (a) the upper-party, Defendant A, and B stolen them from the Defendant’s management located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Busan, the market price of which is 25 million won or more; (b) one man’s handlighter; (c) one woman’s handlighter at the market price of which is 3.5 million won or more; and (d) one handlighter at the market price of which is equivalent to 6.5 million won or more for women; and (e) one handlighter at the market price of which is 7 million won or more.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 331 (2) of the Criminal Act (elective of limited imprisonment);

Defendant B: Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act.

Defendant D: Article 362(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant A and C: Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant C: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55(1)3 (Article 53 and Article 55(1)3)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant A, B, and C: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Defendant A, B, and C: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

Grounds for sentencing

1. Defendant A, B, and C

In light of the fact that the Defendants planned to commit the crime of larceny while carrying multiple types of criminal tools onto a vehicle, and planned to commit the crime of larceny systematically in accordance with the aforementioned plan; the method of the crime of this case was specialized; and the Defendants committed the crime of this case, even though they could have been punished by committing the crime of this case under the same several Acts and subordinate statutes as the crime of this case, such as intrusion upon another person’s residence through apartment bedra, and theft of money and valuables, the Defendants committed the crime of this case again within a short time, and thus, they committed the crime of this case. Therefore, the Defendants cannot be punished strictly.

However, in full view of the Defendants’ criminal records, the degree of participation in the instant crime, and all other circumstances revealed in the records, the punishment shall be determined as per Disposition against the Defendants.

2. In light of the fact that Defendant D had been punished for three times due to the acquisition of stolen property or the custody of stolen property, he again commits the instant crime despite the previous conviction, and that the stolen crime is likely to facilitate the disposal of stolen property, there is a need to strictly punish the criminal in terms of the aspect of supplementing or inducing the larceny as it facilitates disposal of stolen property, and that the risk of recidivism is high, it is reasonable to sentence the criminal to the criminal.

Judges Nationwide

Judges Shin Jae-sung