야간건조물침입절도등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination: (a) the Defendant already committed the instant larceny and committed the instant larceny repeatedly from the time when 1 year has not passed since it had been sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment on October 31, 2017; (b) on December 22, 2017, 12 occasions including five previous criminal records (the four previous criminal records are criminal records among them); (c) the Defendant had the record of juvenile protective disposition nine times; and (d) six times among them, which is the same as the instant larceny; and (e) the Defendant was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor on October 31, 2013 due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; (b) the Defendant committed the instant larceny from the time when 1 year has not passed since her completed the execution of the said punishment; and (c) on December 22, 2017, the Defendant committed the instant larceny by intrusion on his store immediately before, and (d) the Defendant is more likely to be subject to any further criticism; (c) the Defendant’s repeated offense is highly likely to violate the Electronic Financial Punishment Act.
It is inevitable to see that victims' damage has not been recovered until the party's trial, and it is disadvantageous to the defendant.
However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant larcenys; (b) the amount of damage on the instant larcenys itself is relatively small; and (c) the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is a primary offender; and (d) other factors favorable to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime; and (e) all of the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, including the circumstances before and after the crime; (b) the sentence imposed by the lower court is more
It is difficult to see it.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and thus, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.