절도등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the observation of protection) of the lower court is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.
2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant on the PC room and by intrusion upon the church, and the Defendant was punished once, twice the suspension of execution, and twice the fine due to the same type of crime, including the attempt to larceny at night, etc., and in particular, on July 31, 2014, even though he was sentenced to a fine for the attempted larceny at night committed by the Seoul Northern District Court during the suspension of execution on the part of July 31, 2014, the crime of this case was committed in the same kind of crime, and thus, the crime of this case was committed at many times.
However, the defendant committed the crime of this case in order to raise living expenses while making soup soup, PC room, etc. and living together with old life, and the amount of damage and theft method are relatively minor.
From the stage of investigation, the defendant is against all of the crimes, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim of the first, the third, and the second, the second, the judgment of the court below.
In particular, from March 22, 2016, the fact that the Defendant lives in an open female center, which is a self-support facility for the homeless of women, is seriously related to the social workers, and that the Defendant is faithfully working in a self-support car page with a license for lease, while faithfully working in a self-support car page in order to escape from the past, special consideration is limited to whether the instant crime was committed.
In full view of the above circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as the circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and a suspended execution of two years, which the lower court sentenced to, and thus, is unreasonable.
3. As the appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is groundless, Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.