Judgment

Not only habitually stolen property more than five times, but also when the victim was discovered during the thief crime, it is very poor to commit the crime and the crime committed by the robbery to escape arrest.

As the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality regarding Article 329 of the Criminal Act among Article 5-4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, among the provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applicable to the judgment subject to a decision of unconstitutionality, the Defendant asserts that he/she should be sentenced to a more minor punishment than the judgment subject to a decision of unconstitutionality. However, the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality is merely justifiable in that it does not necessarily require reduction of punishment and no punishment for habitual special larceny, but rather requires the application of the general corporate criminal law. Even in the case of quasi-Robbery irrelevant to the decision of unconstitutionality among the crimes in this case, even if the crime in this case was committed, the lower court's decision of statutory penalty constitutes a serious crime of heavy punishment for more than three years. On October 29, 2008, the Cheongju District Court sentenced the punishment for larceny, etc., and completed the execution of punishment on August 11, 2010.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as there is no reason to appeal.