2014Gohap88 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

A

Is Dohee and Israey (Public trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

May 15, 2014

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Criminal History Office

【Criminal Power】

On February 2, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Seoul Central District Court, and on July 15, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and completed the execution of the sentence on May 10, 2013, the same criminal record was nine times more than

【Criminal Facts】

At around 20:00 on December 19, 2013, the Defendant habitually stolen the victim’s cash amounting to KRW 1,010,000,00, which is the victim’s possession, using the gap in the “C’s 1,010,000 cresh in the third floor in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and the third floor 846 Young-gu, and the third floor space in the table.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The Yeongdeungpo-gu video CDs, C video CDs, and other closure photographs;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, inquiry into investigation records, and investigation reports (Confirmation during the period of repeated crimes of suspects);

1. Habituality of judgment: Recognition of dampness in light of the records of each crime, the method and frequency of crimes, the number of crimes and the same kind of crimes committed several times in the judgment;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 329 of the Criminal Act; Selection of limited imprisonment

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Articles 35 and proviso of Article 42 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):

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

The Defendant asserts that there was a lack of ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness, such as depression, at the time of committing the instant crime.

According to the mental appraisal document against the defendant, it is recognized that there is a mixed apprehension and depression disorder with the defendant. However, in light of various circumstances, such as the background and method of the crime acknowledged by the records of this case, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, and the degree of mixed apprehension and depression, it is not deemed that the defendant had weak ability or ability to make a decision on the matter due to mental illness at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (general habitual and repeated thief) for habitual and repeated larceny

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Extent of Recommendation] Three years to six years of imprisonment [the scope of imprisonment, which falls under Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and thus, the upper and lower limit of sentence in the basic area (one point five years to four years of imprisonment) shall be aggravated, respectively]

2. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant has already been sentenced to 11 times or imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime. The Defendant did not have been sentenced to 7 months after the execution of the final sentence was completed, and committed the instant crime even when he was in the period of repeated crime, and again committed the instant crime. Damage to the victim was not completely recovered.

However, the Defendant reflects and re-conscepts his own crime. The instant crime was committed once. The Defendant was mixed, unstable and easible with the Defendant, and the Defendant seems to have been prevented from committing the instant crime under the condition that the Defendant’s decision-making capacity was somewhat lowered.

In addition, the punishment was determined in consideration of all other conditions of sentencing and the circumstances prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

Freeboard of the presiding judge and judge

Judges Park So-young

Judges, Superintendent-Generals and police officers who are unable to affix their seals;

The presiding judge