A copy of the recognition of the crime of habitual robbery in cases of larceny committed before, after, or after, special robbery

In a case where a person who habitually commits several robbery commits the larceny before, after, or after the habitual robbery, it is reasonable to incorporate it into the habitual robbery and discuss it as one crime of habitual robbery.

Articles 331, 334, and 341 of the Criminal Act; Article 5-4 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Southern Branch Court (81 High Court Decision 480)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

One hundred days out of the detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The excessive one or an emergency rescue unit (No. 1 and 2) that has been seized shall be confiscated from the accused, respectively.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the public defender is that the sentence of seven-year imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too vague and unfair.

Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal is examined ex officio. The court below judged that the defendant's special robbery committed five times and preliminary robbery consisting of habitual crimes, and judged that the special larceny facts were committed independently, and recognized as an independent crime, and it is obvious by the original judgment that the punishment is concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act") with heavy punishment. Thus, it is obvious by the original judgment that the crime of robbery and robbery constitutes part of the crime, and when the defendant commits special robbery instead of the special larceny in this case, compared with the case where the form of larceny in this case constitutes part of the crime and the case where the defendant commits the special robbery in this case. In light of the above special robbery in this case, in light of the circumstances where the defendant committed concurrent crimes with the punishment imposed on the crime of the above special larceny, and thus unreasonable results are generated, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the habitual robbery or robbery and thus, it is not reasonable to escape the crime of habitual robbery in this case.

Therefore, a party member shall reverse the judgment of the court below and render a new judgment by applying Articles 364(2) and 361-5 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The criminal facts of the defendant and the summary of the evidence of the defendant who is judged as a party member are the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and they are cited as they are in accordance with Article 369

All of the judgment of the defendant shall be subject to Article 5-4 (3) of the Aggravated Punishment Act, Articles 334 and 331 (2) of the Criminal Act, and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years within the scope of the term of punishment reduced by discretionary mitigation under Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act, considering the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant selected a limited term of imprisonment, and the defendant is the first offender who is under age, and the mistake as an initial offender, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years. In accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, 110 days of the number of detention days before the sentence of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above punishment, and the excessive one half of the number of detention days before the sentence of the judgment of the court below, and one one half of the pages and one one half of the first one (No. 1 and 2) shall be confiscated under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-hun (Presiding Judge)