beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged [criminal record] Defendant was sentenced to five months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Incheon District Court on April 18, 2006, and was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court on July 3, 2008 for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny). On December 9, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced him/her to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and completed the execution of the sentence at the Daegu Prison on April 22, 201
【Criminal Facts】
On March 7, 2014, at around 20:23, the Defendant: (a) 142 city bus operating from the south-dong, Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the port side of the victim C and laid down his hand on a household, thereby cutting off his hand; (b) 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2,00.
Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen another's property.
2. Determination
A. In the case of habitual crimes, the effect of an indictment lies on the whole criminal facts that are identical to the criminal facts in which the prosecution is instituted, and the trial scope that affects the validity of the indictment should be based on the time of sentencing, which is the last point at which it is possible to examine the facts. As such, once a prosecutor institutes a prosecution for habitual fraud and then institutes a public prosecution for a part of the fraudulent act, which is an independent habitual crime, not later than the time when the prosecution was instituted for habitual fraud, which is the facts charged, falls under a double prosecution for the same case in which the public prosecution was instituted, without asking whether the time when the crime was committed is transferred or after the crime was committed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do3929, Nov. 26, 199). This act of larceny by the time when a public prosecutor institutes a prosecution for habitual larceny and until the judgment becomes effective.