beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and ten months, respectively.
Reasons
A. Articles 342, 331(2), and 331(1) of each Criminal Act, Articles 347(1), and 30 of each Criminal Act, Article 70(1)3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 148-2(2)2 and 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018; hereafter in force on June 25, 2019)
1. Defendants of repeated crimes: Article 35 of the Criminal Act (Provided, That the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in Defendant B is excluded herefrom);
1. Defendants among concurrent crimes: The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (the defendant)], Article 1, Article 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines]: the basic area [the mitigation: in the case of intrusion into a place other than indoor residential space, aggravated: one year or two years in the case of repeated crimes, habitual crimes of the same kind which do not fall under specific crime Aggravated Punishment: One year or two years in the case of habitual crimes] * The scope of sentence according to the sentencing guidelines for multiple crimes * the special larceny attempted crime for which no sentencing guidelines have been set * the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the crime of the Road Traffic Act / [decision on the punishment] The defendants committed the same several repeated crimes under the same Act even before the sentence is sentenced], and each of the defendants has a high possibility of repeating the punishment period.
However, in light of the fact that the Defendants are both aware of the crimes, and each victim’s damage is relatively serious (However, the so-called “living-type crime” cannot be deemed to be a so-called “living-type crime in light of the age and career of the Defendants), the Defendants’ health status is not good, considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendants.
The motive and background of the crime, including the above circumstances, and the method and consequence of the crime.