logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1983. 4. 26. 선고 83도561,83감도103 판결
[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반·보호감호][공1983.6.15.(706),945]
Main Issues

Whether the crime of stolen and the crime of larceny constitute a crime of the same kind or similar under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act (negative)

Summary of Judgment

The crime of stolen and larceny can not be considered as the same or similar crime under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 5 and 6 of the Social Protection Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 82Do383 Delivered on October 12, 1982

An applicant for concurrent Office of the Defendant

Defendant and Appellant for Custody

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Defense Counsel

Attorney Choi Young-do

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 82No1445, 82No354 delivered on January 22, 1983

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the facts of habitual larceny, which is the principal facts charged against the defendant, is justified and it cannot be found that there is any violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore the arguments cannot be adopted.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

Since the crime of stolen and larceny cannot be regarded as a crime of the same or similar kind under Article 5 of the Social Protection Act is a case of a party member (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do383, Oct. 12, 1982). Therefore, the judgment below to the same purport is just and the judgment below is not justified, and there is no argument to criticize the judgment of the court below based on the dissenting opinion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)

arrow