(영문) 대구지방법원 2008.10.24.선고 2008고합627 판결

One identification card (No. 1 out of the total list of seized articles in Daegu District Prosecutors' Office No. 1766 of the pressure of 2008, No. 1766 of the total list of seized articles), one knife (No. 2 of the list in the same list), one knife (No. 3 of the same list in the same list), one knife (No. 4 of the same list in the same list), and one vinyl leaf (No. 5 of the same list in the same list) shall be forfeited from the defendant.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On August 14, 2003, the Defendant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for robbery, injury, etc. by the Daegu High Court, and was released on April 30, 2007 from the Jinju prison on parole on October 2, 2007 during the execution of the sentence.

1. On August 10, 2008, at around 19:00, the Defendant opened, in his hand, one sealed letter from the floor of the present site of the building C, the sender of which is the victim D, and one sealed letter made by the receiver E, from around 19:00, the Defendant opened the sealed letter of the letter in his/her own possession, thereby opening the sealed letter of another.

2. At around 20:20 on August 10, 208, at the same place as above, the Defendant: (a) 20: (b) 1 and 2008, through the contents of the letter in which the receiver was called E, the Defendant: (c) discovered the fact that the victim’s father, D, who is the father of the victim, was living in Kimcheon prison; and (d) presented the victim’s identification card (which was first created in the case of the above C building F, to the victim of the Daegu District Prosecutor H (which was in charge of father’s identification in the Gimcheon Prison, and which was investigated in relation to his father; (d) induced the victim from outside of his house, the Defendant was arrested into the top of the IMF5 car operated by the Defendant, and then, (e) took a deadly weapon, which is a deadly weapon of the victim’s driver, and (e) took a dangerous weapon of the victim’s 3 hours beyond 20 hours beyond 3:3rd of the victim’s vehicle.

3. At around 23:20 on August 10, 2008, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim G with the above autopsy, which is a deadly weapon in the vicinity of the above C building; (b) threatened the victim G with “B,” and forced the victim to take money and valuables equivalent to KRW 1,877,450 won per market price, including the amount equivalent to KRW 320,00,00, total market price per gold sheet and KRW 978,30,00 in cash, per gold sheet and KRW 481,150 in total, per gold sheet and KRW 320,00 in total, per gold sheet and KRW 320,00 in total.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement corresponding thereto in this court;

1. Statements corresponding to the written complaint filed for DNA preparation;

1. A statement consistent with the investigation report (related to calculating the amount of damage) prepared by the assistant judicial police officer;

1. Statement to the effect that the defendant has seized one identification card and one knife as indicated in the records of seizure prepared by the judicial police officer;

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Statement consistent with criminal records of the accused during inquiry into criminal records;

1. Each investigation report prepared by the Superintendent of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office (in addition, a copy of the judgment and the confirmation of the date of release from the maturity of the parole case) corresponding thereto;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 316(1) of the Criminal Act (the opening of a letter, choice of imprisonment), Articles 3(1) and 2(1)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 276(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of carrying a deadly weapon), Articles 334(2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of special robbery and choice of limited imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes, the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act [Article 3 of the Criminal Act with respect to special robbery, although the prosecutor stated only Article 35 of the Criminal Act in the indictment, the court is not bound by the court in emphasizing repeated crimes under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do4036, Feb. 12, 199)]

Article 35 of the Criminal Act [Article 42 of the Criminal Act concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (collective, deadly Weapons, etc.): Provided, That the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act shall apply to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly Weapons, etc.)]

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, Article 50, and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the largest special robbery)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

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

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Act

1. Confiscation;

The reason for sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Code is that the defendant has divided his/her mistake and that there is no fact that the defendant has inflicted an injury on the victim in the course of committing the crime.

However, the Defendant’s crime of this case is prepared in advance for the crime committed with forged prosecutor’s identification card and knife, etc., which is a deadly weapon, and then read the victim’s personal information by voluntarily opening the letter of the victim, and then accessing the victim using the information, taking a deadly weapon into consideration the victim’s personal information, and taking the victim’s property by taking advantage of the fact that the crime of this case was committed in a planned and very intelligent manner. In light of the circumstances of the crime, etc., the nature of the crime is not good.

Furthermore, the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment of four-year imprisonment for an injury by robbery on August 14, 2003, and the period of parole on April 30, 2007 and for which the parole was passed on October 2, 2007, and committed the instant crime without being aware of whether parole was granted and not less than one year and three to four months, and even if he was convicted of repeated crime under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes, even if he was selected to be sentenced to a limited term of imprisonment for a limited term of ten years, it is inevitable to sentence more severe than the statutory minimum punishment. Moreover, even if the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim, and as the damage was completely recovered, it is not good after the commission of the crime.

In addition, the sentence is ordered as ordered by comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances before and after the crime.

Judges

The presiding judge, appointed judge;

Judges Excellent

Judges Civil Service Bureau