(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.19. 선고 2018고합869 판결

On May 15, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Do) by the Seoul Northern District Court on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and three years from September 22, 201, respectively.

On June 1, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the same crime at the Seoul Western District Court, and on March 20, 2018, the Seoul Southern Prison completed the enforcement of the sentence.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act;

On July 13, 2018, the Defendant attempted to steal or steal the property owned by the victim three times in total from the time to August 19, 2018, including: (a) the victim C was found to have been under the influence of alcohol, and (b) the victim’s market value, which was located adjacent to the victim, was approximately KRW 3.40,000 won.

As a result, the defendant was sentenced to punishment twice or more habitually due to larceny, and had attempted to steals another's property habitually or to steal another's property habitually within three years after the execution of the sentence was completed.

2. Embezzlements of lost possession;

Around June 2018, the Defendant: (a) obtained a mobile phone of about KRW 340,00,00 from the market value of Samsung Galtho City of Samsung Galtho City of approximately KRW 3,450,00,00 in the city of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu; and (b) embezzled it on his own idea to have, without taking necessary measures, such as returning it to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

[Defendant 1]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and C;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. Seizure records;

【Criminal facts No. 2】

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Seizure records;

【Habitual Crimes and Habitual Crimes】

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiry reports and investigation reports (limited to habitual offender records of special family acts);

1. Habituality: A person who has been punished several times due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., such as the statement of criminal records in the holding, and repeatedly commits each larceny of the same kind after being released from prison, in light of the fact that each larceny of the same case has been repeatedly committed;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 329, 330, and 342 of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively including larcenys), and Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of embezzlement of stolen objects and the choice of imprisonment);

Article 35 of the Criminal Code

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act are more severe penalties provided for in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) and concurrent crimes within the limit provided for in the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months to twenty-five years;

2. Scope of recommended sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years;

[Determination of Punishment] thief under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Habitual thief)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 2 years to 4 years of imprisonment

3. Determination of sentence: Two years of imprisonment;

Considering the fact that the Defendant had been guilty of several times due to a similar several methods, and the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he had committed a repeated crime due to the same type of crime, some of the crimes committed by the Defendant by intrusion upon residence at night, and did not recover from damage to the victim F, it is necessary to punish him corresponding to his liability.

However, in order to prepare living expenses, the defendant seems to have reached the crime of this case, the amount of damage to the crime of this case is not high, most of the damaged goods have been returned, the defendant recognized and reflects the crime, and the defendant's age, growth process, family relationship, details and method of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, etc. shall be determined as ordered by taking into account various sentencing factors that are shown in the arguments, such as the defendant's age

Judges

The presiding judge, the Kim Jong-dong

Judge Political decoration

Judge Lee Sang-hoon

Note tin

1) Article 37 of the Criminal Act provides for the crime of embezzlement of stolen objects for which the sentencing criteria are not set, and the crime of larceny against which the sentencing criteria are set.

Since the former concurrent crimes are in the relationship of concurrent crimes, only the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines is referenced.