2018Gohap1190 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)

A

He/she shall file a prosecution and hold a public trial on his/her own.

Attorney Kim Jong-soo (Korean)

February 1, 2019

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Criminal History Office

【Criminal Power】

On November 17, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Seoul Southern District Court on November 17, 2009, and was sentenced to three years for the same crime at the Seoul Central District Court on September 2, 2014 and was sentenced to three years for the same crime on June 21, 2017, and had seven times more criminal records.

【Criminal Facts】

1. At around 00:05 on November 28, 2018, the Defendant: (a) stolen the gap in which the victim B was under influence of alcohol in the front line of subway 2 lines located near the subway 2 lines located in Guro-gu Seoul, Guro-gu, Seoul, with one cellular phone in an amount equivalent to KRW 800,000,000 in the market price owned by the victim who was the victim of the buckbuck in the front line of the subway 2 lines located near the subway 117-21.

2. On November 28, 2018, around 00:12, the Defendant: (a) stolen the gap in which the victim C was under influence of alcohol in the electric car operating a subway 2 line near the 160-line red transit area in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu, Seoul, with only one unit of Aphone X mobile phone equivalent to KRW 1,200,000 in the market price owned by the victim, where other victims fall into the floor.

3. On November 28, 2018, at around 00:28, the Defendant: (a) cut off the gap of the victim D from the Handbag of the victim’s handbag, the market price of which is equivalent to one million won of the victim’s market price, from the Handbag of another victim’s handbag, in the electric vehicle operating the subway No. 229 located near the subway No. 2, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu.

As a result, the defendant was sentenced twice or more to habitually violate the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and again stolen the victims' property within three years after the execution of the sentence was completed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement against D. B and C;

1. Investigation report (to be accompanied by the control details and screen pictures and CDs for crimes);

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, results of prisoners' search, and investigation reports (report attached to the same type of electric records, etc.);

1. Habituality of the judgment: The dampness of the larceny is recognized in light of the criminal records in the judgment, criminal methods, frequency, etc.;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act (Overall Control)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for one year and six months to twenty-five years; and

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] thief under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Habitual thief)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Two to Four years of imprisonment (Basic Area)

3. Determination of sentence;

The crime of this case is likely to result in smartphones of passengers, who are under the influence of alcohol in subway trains. The frequency and amount of damage are not significant, and the crime of the same water law has been committed during the period of repeated crimes even though the defendant had already been punished several times for the same crime.

However, there are favorable circumstances such as the return of all the damaged goods at the investigation stage, the recognition of errors and the reflection of the errors.

In addition, in consideration of various circumstances shown in the records and pleadings such as the age, character and conduct and environment of the defendant, relationship to victims, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined within the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines.

The presiding judge and judges;

Judges Kim Young-ho

Judgment of the Prosecutor