2011Gohap84 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)

Park○-○ (64*********), employee

Housing Jeju 1dong ******

Reference domicile Jeju-dong **

Kim Jong-Hun, Hudon decoration

Attorney Kang Chang-sung (Korean) and Lee Ho-hoon (Korean),

November 28, 2011

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

A seized kacker (No. 6) shall be confiscated.

Criminal facts

On October 13, 1998, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and on January 13, 2009, the Daegu District Court sentenced the same criminal records more than six times than one year and six months. On August 28, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to three months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Daegu District Court for fraud and completed the execution of the sentence on May 18, 2010.

The Defendant habitually committed three times through the following crimes: (a) heard or attempted to steals things owned by the victim (the State) the World Embrates; and (b) attempted to steal them.

1. A larceny on September 9, 201;

On September 17, 2011, the Defendant removed the theft prevention text attached respectively to the victim's 26,000 won, the total market value of which is equivalent to 31,600 won, male panty 40 won, the total market value of which is equivalent to 10,000 won, 20 square meters, 22,800 won, and 22,800 won, and 22,800 won, of the market value, respectively, of male stacks and bar codes.

After that, the defendant stolen the above articles in total amounting to 90,400 won, which are the victim's market value, under the control of the carart for the transportation of goods, and without covering the paper stuffs above, and without covering it.

2. A larceny on September 11, 201;

At around 16:00 on September 11, 201, the Defendant: (a) used a gap in which the surveillance of the victim employees was neglected; and (b) used a gap in the victim’s employees’ surveillance at the display stand, the Defendant stolen five wells worth KRW 9,800 of the victim’s market price, which is located in the display stand, by hiding the empty le to the display stand.

The Defendant continued to display 1 Do 1 Do 1,200, 1 Do 1,920 won in the market price, 1 Do 17,920 won in the market price, 1 Do 1 Do 13,900 won in the market price, and 1 Do 1 Do 79,000 in the market price, and removed bar codes and theft prevention architecture, which were each attached to one Do 39,000 won in the market price, and then put them into the bank in front by Do 1 Do 1,200 in the market price, Do 1 Do 1,200, and Do 1 Do 1,35,000 in the market price, and had the remaining Do 1 Do 35,000 in the market price, and had the Do 1 Do 3,000 in the market price, and had the remaining Do k k k k k k k k.

After that, the defendant stolen the above articles in the aggregate amount of 294,820 won, which are owned by the victim, in a manner that does not calculate them.

3. An occupation of attempted larceny on September 11, 201;

The Defendant removed, at the date and time set forth in paragraph (2), one set of bags for travel, the market price of which is at least 9,000 won, and one set of 25,600 won at the market price, one set of 1 set of 15,800 won at the market price, one set of 1 set of 12,800 won at the market price, and one set of 1 set of 12,800 won at each set of traditional liquor of 52,000 won at the market price, respectively, which was attached to 1 set of traditional liquor of 52,00 won at the market price, and one set of 1 set of 52,000 won at each set of traditional liquor of 52,00 won at the market price.

After that, the Defendant did not calculate the above victim's goods and attempted to arrest the police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report from the victim's employees, but failed to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to 00 places of service;

1. Seizure records;

1. Investigation report (investigation into attaching on-site CCTVs and photographs of stolen objects);

1. Existing presence of a seized kacker (No. 6);

1. Previous convictions: Criminal history records and investigation reports (the date of release, confirmation of the date of release and attachment of judgment);

1. Habituality: A defendant is punished twice against a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

(2) A repeated crime after having been discharged from the court with the record of having been punished several times for a larceny crime, such as larceny

Criminal records and crimes committed by the defendant, such as committing the crime again during the term;

applicable law, frequency of crimes, and repeated crimes of the same kind, etc.

was determined.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act

section 5(Generally, Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Articles 35 and proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years - imprisonment for twenty-five years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] thief group, habitual thief, repeated thief, Category 1

[Special Aggravation and Mitigation Elements]

[Recommendation of Punishment] Three years of imprisonment, - Six years (Basic Area)

[General Mitigation Elements] Minor, Serious Bans

[General Aggravation]

3. Determination of sentence: Three years of imprisonment; and

Considering that the defendant committed the same kind of crime during the period of repeated crime after having been sentenced to imprisonment several times for the same crime as stated in its holding, he/she should be punished by severe punishment for the defendant.

However, it is decided as per Disposition within the scope of the minor term of punishment in consideration of the following factors: the Defendant recognized all the crimes of this case and reflects the mistake thereof; the damage to the crime of this case is relatively minor; the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, family relationship, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc.

jury verdict and sentencing opinion

Dogna Dogna Dog Dogna Dog

All five jurors guilty

Opinions on the sentencing of terms

Five jurors: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years;

Forwarding Human Rights (Presiding Judge)

Maximum Return

Kim Jong-Hun