2017Gohap931 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)

A

Preliminary examination, fump (public trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

October 27, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】

On October 17, 1979, the Defendant was subject to a disposition taken by the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office to larceny with the Family Court on April 28, 1982; on November 3, 1982, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for August 28, 198; on September 26, 1986, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced 1 year and six months from September 26, 198 to larceny; on October 16, 1991, the Seoul Central Public Prosecutor's Office sentenced 1 year and six months from the same court; on July 21, 1998, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) by imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and six months from the same court on November 8, 200; and on October 16, 2006 to the Seoul District Court on the Aggravated Theft (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes).

【Criminal Facts】

On August 13, 2017, at around 12:30 on August 13, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 12:30, at the precious metal shop, the victim, who purchased the 1st floor 105 of the main floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building, is the customer who purchased the buyer, and (b) asked the price of the buyer to the victim; (c) and (d) made use of the gap in which the buyer was found and surveillance was neglected, one gold-Ban (14 km, male) was placed in the buyer whose market price is equivalent to 400,000 won in the display stand.

As a result, the Defendant was sentenced to punishment twice or more due to larceny, etc., and habitually stolen another’s property within three years after the execution of the sentence is completed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A report on internal investigation (the analysis of field rents and CCTVs);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, etc. and investigation reports (report on criminal records and criminal records of a suspect A);

1. Habituality of the judgment: A theft and dampness is recognized in light of the following facts: The method of crime in the judgment and the fact that a series of offenses already sentenced to several times is brought about again to commit the crime of this case within four months after having been released from the prison, even though they had been sentenced to several times of punishment;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

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

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for one year and six months to twenty-five years; and

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of thief] Class 2 of the thief Act on Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment (Habitual thief)

【Special Convicted Persons】 Members not subject to punishment

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months to 3 years (Mitigation)

3. Determination of sentence;

The crime of this case is deemed to have stolen precious metals by pretending to be a customer, and immediately after the crime was committed, and was disposed of at least 11 times, and was released from the same crime despite the fact that it had been punished, and thus, the nature and circumstances of the crime of larceny are not good.

However, there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the number of crimes has not been significantly damaged by only one time, that the victim wanted the wife by mutual consent with the defendant, and that it seems to result in the crime in order to raise living expenses in the poor wife.

In addition, in consideration of the various circumstances shown in the records and pleadings such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined within the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines.

The presiding judge and judges;

Judges Sung Jae-in

Judges' Index