장물취득
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Defendant
A.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendants) that the court below sentenced to the defendants (the defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment and the defendant B: 1 year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the confessions of Defendant A to commit each of the instant crimes, and the fact that the stolens acquired by Defendant A appear to have been restored to victims by their temporary return.
However, in light of the frequency, method, etc. of the crime in this case, each of the crimes in this case is not good; Defendant A has been sentenced to imprisonment six times with prison labor; Defendant A has been sentenced to a suspended sentence twice; Defendant A has been sentenced to a fine; among them, the crime of larceny and stolen reaches eight times; there is no change in the circumstances that may be considered as the reason for sentencing in the trial; and other various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, including Defendant A’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, means and consequence of the crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered as being too unreasonable.
Defendant
B (Ex officio determination) Prior to the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant B, Defendant B, on June 23, 2016, sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months from the Busan District Court’s branch branch, with prison labor for property acquisition on June 1, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 1, 2016. As such, the crime in the judgment of the court below is in the relation between the crime of acquiring stolen goods for which judgment became final and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime in the latter concurrent crimes of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act at the same time, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in this respect.
3. Accordingly, the appeal by the defendant A is without merit, and the decision of the court below against the defendant B is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there are grounds for the above ex officio reversal, so unfair sentencing of the defendant B.