logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.5.2. 선고 2014고합310 판결
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
Cases

2014Gohap310 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)

Defendant

A

Prosecutor

Park Ho-young (prosecution), Ba-young (Public trial)

Helpers

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

Imposition of Judgment

May 2, 2014

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Reasons

Criminal History Office

【Criminal Power】

On February 1, 1996, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for ten months in prison, two years in probation, two years in prison, three years in prison in the same court on August 16, 1996, one year in prison due to night-time intrusion, larceny, etc., and six months in the same court on August 9, 200, six months in prison due to larceny in the same court on August 7, 2002, one year and six months in prison, one year and six months in the same court on March 4, 2003, one year and six years in prison due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the Seoul Central District Court on October 26, 2004, three years in prison in the same court on March 30, 207, and one year in the execution of the punishment under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) by being sentenced to imprisonment for three years in the same court on August 13, 2010.

【Criminal Facts】

On March 7, 2014, at around 07:20, the Defendant got 20,000 won in cash owned by the victim and 400,000 won in a new bank credit card company, in the clothing store for the management of the victim F of the D market E located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D market E.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Investigation report ( telephone conversations with the Arrester G);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports, investigation reports, personal identification records, investigation reports, written judgments;

1. Habituality of judgment: dampness in light of the records of each crime, time of crime, method of crime, etc. as shown in the judgment;

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, Article 329 of the Criminal Act

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 (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for three years to twenty-five years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 for habitual larceny (general repeated larceny)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Extent of Recommendation] Basic Field, 3 years of imprisonment to 6 years (the Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the upper and lower limits of the scope of sentence are increased by 1.5 times)

3. Determination of sentence;

The defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, and two months have not passed since he/she completed the execution of the same crime, and he/she has committed the crime of this case under the same several laws, and it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant due to poor quality of the crime.

However, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant reflects his/her criminal act, the amount of damage, and the amount of damage was not relatively large, the amount of damage was returned to the victim, and the fact that the defendant seems to be not healthy due to a long-term flood life, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive for the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing factors specified in the arguments in this case, including the defendant's age, character

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court;

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges in the order of precedence

arrow