In a case where a charge of habitual larceny was instituted but only some of the larceny was recognized as a simple concurrent crime, whether the charge of habitual larceny and the charge of the remaining larceny shall be pronounced not guilty in the disposition (negative)

In a case where the facts of habitual larceny were prosecuted for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes), but the facts of habitual larceny and 4 times were not recognized, and only the following two times of larceny are recognized as concurrent crimes of simple larceny, it is reasonable to conclude that the charges of larceny are included in the charges of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) in addition to the charges of larceny recognized as guilty, and that the charges of larceny are included in the charges of habitual larceny, i.e., the charges of

Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Do1787 Decided September 26, 197 (Gong1978, 11127) Supreme Court Decision 80Do726 Decided June 24, 1980 (Gong1980, 12924) Supreme Court Decision 92Do77 Decided June 9, 192 (Gong192, 2173)

Defendant

Attorney Kim Tae-hwan

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

180 days out of the number of detention days before this judgment is rendered shall be included in the above sentence.

Criminal facts

On December 16, 1992, the defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment by the Daejeon District Court for embezzlement of stolen objects, etc. and completed the execution of the sentence on May 25, 1995;

1. A. A. On June 22, 1995, the victim was sent to the front seat of the defendant while driving a car in the middle-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (vehicle number omitted) after the police box located in the Gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, and discovered the victim's abnormal age who tried to catch a taxi under the influence of alcohol in the street of the defendant while driving the car in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City (vehicle number omitted), and the victim passed a resolution that steals the belongings from the defendant's vehicle on the victim's side, and the victim's vehicle on the same direction "I will turn off the same direction". After getting the victim to go to the front seat of the defendant, the victim was cut to the front seat of the victim, and then the victim was cut off in cash of 30,00 won, one resident registration certificate, one driver's license, one sheet, one credit card ticket, one 7,100,100,100, 10,100, 10, 10, 10, 10, 1, 10, 1, 1, 1, 3, etc.

B. Around 23:50 on July 19, 19 of the same year, while driving a car in front of the Rouri-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (vehicle number omitted) by the Defendant’s vehicle in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (vehicle number omitted), the Defendant’s vehicle was under the influence of alcohol, discovered the victim’s least light who was seated, and accessed the Defendant’s vehicle on the victim’s side, and stopped. The Defendant’s vehicle was cut off without getting off from the vehicle, and then the Defendant’s vehicle was cut off to the front lap, and then the vehicle was cut off by driving it as it is, without getting off from the vehicle, by driving it, by driving it without a verification color tag consisting of 10,00 won in cash, one credit card card, and one public telephone card.

2. On the 8th day of the same month, at around 19:30, the non-indicted 1 of the police box of the Seoul Central Police Station, who was working for the patrol station 3 Dong-dong, Seoul Central Police Station 409, presented 500,000 won cashier's checks at the face value of 50,000 won, which had been on the street and had been on the street in advance at the gold bank. However, the non-indicted 1 of the police box of the Seoul Central Police Station 3 Dong-dong, who was on the patrol, was called for the above gold bank, after receiving a report on the knife's disease, which was found to be a stolen check;

그 시경 위 장소에서 신고를 받고 경찰관이 출동한 것을 알아차린 피고인이 그 곳에 타고 온 서울 (차량번호 생략) 승용차에 승차하여 도망하려고 하는 것을 경찰관 공소외인이 손을 들어 제지하는 자세로 승용차 앞을 가로막고 있는 것을 보고도 위험한 물건인 위 승용차를 운전하여 그대로 진행하여 위 공소외인이 피고인의 승용차 본네트 위에 튕겨 올려지게 되자, 피고인은 위 공소외인을 떨어뜨리기 위해 좌우로 심하게 핸들조작을 하면서 약 300m를 진행하여 위 공소외인을 노상에 떨어뜨리고, 계속해서 망우동 로타리 방면으로 진행하여 도주하는 것을 위 공소외인이 인근 주민으로부터 오토바이를 빌려 계속 추격해 오자 피고인은 위 공소외인을 승용차로 들이받아 추격을 못하게 하여 체포를 면탈할 의도로 갑자기 망우 2동 소재 장준환 산부인과 앞 노상에서 승용차를 유턴하여 방향을 바꾼 다음 진행해 오던 위 공소외인 운전의 오토바이의 앞바퀴 부분을 들이받아 노상에 굴러 떨어지게 한 후 그대로 도주하여 위 경찰관 공소외인의 정당한 공무집행을 방해함과 동시에 위 공소외인에게 요치 약 4주간의 치아파절상, 다발성찰과상 및 좌상 등을 가하고,

3. A. At the date and time set forth in paragraph (a) above, at the place described in paragraph (1) above, the Defendant’s “sat in the Seoul (vehicle number omitted) car number plates” was put into “ma” by blue and white tape, and was used unlawfully, the Defendant’s vehicle number plates are exercised by operating the said car without attaching it as it is and attaching it to it;

B. At the time and place specified in the foregoing paragraph 2, operate the same car with a license plate attached to it as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph 1 and exercises a license plate attached to it, which is an air unit of the foregoing unlawfully used;

C. At the time and place specified in the above 1-B B, the Defendant 3's Seoul (vehicle number omitted) car number plate was placed in '8' using a white tape, and the said car was used unlawfully, but it was attached thereto, and the car number plate, which is an air unit used unlawfully, was used.

Summary of Evidence

The facts of the other ruling except the previous conviction of the first head of the ruling are:

1. Statements made by the defendant on the first trial date in this court and statements made on the third trial date; and

1. Statement by the Nonindicted Witness in this Court

1. Statement No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 of each protocol of suspect examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Statement of the Nonindicted Party’s statement prepared by the prosecutor

1. Each statement made by the Nonindicted Party, the head of a Ri, the highest light, the tidal fever, the believers, the private police officer, and the record of each statement made in relation to the management of affairs conducted by the judicial police officer; and

1. Each record of seizure prepared by a judicial police officer (164 pages of investigation records) and record of seizure prepared for handling affairs by a judicial police officer (46 pages of investigation records);

1. Statement that conforms to the part and degree of the injury as indicated in the judgment among the medical certificates against the Nonindicted Party in preparation of Kim Byung-hun

1. Entry of the report on confirmation of damaged materials in the preparation of the prosecution assistant in the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office;

1. Recognizing that two copies (No. 10) of a photograph of the motor vehicle license plate seized are integrated and recognized;

The criminal records of the first head of the ruling shall:

1. Statement of the first protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor at the time;

1. Entry of the certificate of release from prison in the Daejeon Correctional Institution; and

1. Entry of the report on confirmation of the convicts in the book of prosecution assistant in the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office;

As a whole, the facts of the judgment can be recognized by taking account of all of them, there is proof.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

Article 329 (Types of Larcenys, Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act, Article 144 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of causing special obstruction of performance of official duties at the time of market, the choice of limited imprisonment), Article 238 (2) and Article 238 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of uttering of Illegal Use of Air at the time

2. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 (Aggravated Punishment for the Death resulting from Special Obstruction of Official Duties in its Judgment, which shall be aggravated within the scope of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act)

3. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (In respect of each of the crimes on board, the punishment shall be aggravated within the scope of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act, which provides for the crime of causing bodily injury to special obstruction

4. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Parts of innocence

1. On June 2, 195, the summary of the instant facts charged by the Defendant: The victim's 0 driver's license for a 0-month printing machine with the same 0-month number 60 driver's license for a 0-month printing machine, the victim's 0-month printing machine 1, the victim's 0-month printing machine 1, the victim's 0-month printing machine 2, the victim's 0-month printing machine 1, the victim's 0-month printing machine 1, the Seoul 0-month printing machine 2, the victim's 0-month printing machine 1, the victim's 0-month printing machine 1, the victim's 0-month ticket 1, the victim's 0-month ticket 1, the victim's 0-month ticket 1, the victim's 0-month ticket 2, the victim's 0-month ticket 1, the victim's 0-month ticket 1, the victim's 10-month ticket 1, etc.

2. First of all, the facts charged by the defendant on June 16, 1995, on the 26th of the same month, on the 27th of the same month, and on July 5 of the same year.

Examining whether the Defendant committed the same theft as the mentioned in the above facts charged (b), C, D, and E), the Defendant consistently denied the above facts charged by asserting that, from the police to this court, the Defendant had some of the damaged goods of the above facts charged at a garbage site in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government heading on the date and time from the date and time to the court, the Defendant had some of the damaged goods of the above facts charged, and the Defendant had 10 copies of the cashier’s check, which is a part of the damaged goods of the above facts charged, from the temporary and temporary gambling box, purchased 500,000 won cashier’s checks at face value.

Therefore, the evidence submitted as evidence of guilt in relation to the above facts charged is examined, and it is hard to prepare a prosecutor's authority to force the preparation of the prosecutor's statement, and each statement of the judicial police officer's statement about tin, tin, tin, tin, tin, and scarcity were stolen as of the date and time stated in the above facts charged, at the place, and articles such as the above facts charged, but all of the defendants are not aware of the facts charged. However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the record of the preparation of administrative affairs by the judicial police officer's handling of the evidence; (b) the statement of the prosecutor's authority to force the preparation of the prosecutor; and (c) the statement of this case; (d) the statement of this case; (d) the defendant's vehicle Nos. 4 (Refinite 1; (e) the No. 1); (e) the defendant's 1); (e) the defendant's 1); and (e) the defendant's 1); and (e) the above 1); (g) the defendant's 1); and 1) the defendant's.

Next, with regard to the fact that the defendant habitually commits the larceny as stated in the above facts charged, the facts that the defendant committed the larceny act (as stated in the above facts charged) on June 2, 1995 and July 19 of the same year as stated in the above facts charged are as shown in the above judgment. Furthermore, as to whether the defendant committed the same crime as described in the above A and B, due to the outbreak of such habits, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant committed the larceny crime as stated in the above facts charged by taking into account the following facts: (a) the statement from this court of evidence; (b) the criminal records of the defendant who prepared the above evidence in this court; and (c) the criminal records of the defendant against the defendant prepared by the Seoul Criminal Court on June 12, 1985; (d) the criminal records of the crime of larceny and the criminal records prepared by the Seoul Criminal Court on June 29, 195; (e) it is difficult to recognize that the defendant committed the larceny crime of larceny and the criminal records prepared by the Seoul Criminal Prosecutor's Office on the ground.

3. If so, among the above facts charged against the defendant, each of the larceny charges of June 16, 195, 26, 27, and 5 July 5 of the same year (the above facts charged; b., c., d. and e.) against the defendant constitutes a case in which there is no proof of a crime, and thus the defendant should be acquitted. However, the above facts charged are charged as one of the crimes of larceny under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (ththth) by combining each of the facts charged of larceny in Article 1 of the judgment that found the defendant guilty with the facts charged of larceny in addition to the facts charged of larceny in Article 1 of the above facts charged of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (ththth). Since it is deemed that the facts charged of larceny are included in the facts charged of larceny under the above facts charged of habitual larceny, and thus, it shall not be sentenced separately from the text of the above judgment.

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

Judges Lee Dong-won (Presiding Judge)