특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
The Defendant filed a petition for a retrial on June 2, 2015 on the ground that the Constitutional Court rendered a decision as unconstitutional on February 26, 2015 under Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 20210, Mar. 31, 2010), among the legal provisions that applied to the judgment subject to a retrial, the part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act, among the provisions of the Act applied to the judgment subject to a retrial, was decided to commence the retrial on July 13, 2015 and the part concerning the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the part of the lower judgment) and the crime of
Therefore, the scope of the review of this case is limited to the above part.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
The punishment of the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Judgment ex officio
A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal was made, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment ex officio to "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" among the names of the defendants in the trial of the defendant, and "Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 329, 330, and 331(1) of the Criminal Act" among the applicable provisions of the Act, "Articles 332, 329, 330, and 331(1) of the Criminal Act", and since this court changed the subject of adjudication by permitting it, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained further.
B. According to the records, the police voluntarily received 1 point from the Defendant on May 13, 2013, and seized 1 point from the Defendant. At around 02:00 on February 7, 2013, it can be known that the Defendant was stolen from the Plaintiff’s name unclaimed passenger car owned by the victim’s name unclaimed passenger car at the time of inn, and there is no evidence to deem that the said 1 point was temporarily returned to the victim. However, the lower court committed an unlawful act of omitting it, even though it was sentenced that the said 1 point was returned to the victim’s name unclaimed passenger.