2017Gohap1052 Special Robbery and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Anti-thief

2017Gohap1207(combined) Special robbery

A

New support, erroneouss (prosecutions) and scarcitys (public trials)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

January 25, 2018

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Records】

On March 19, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment by the Gwangju High Court for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and was sentenced to four years of imprisonment by the Seoul Northern District Court for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on January 30, 2013, and was sentenced to a retrial by the decision of unconstitutionality under the above provision of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and was sentenced to a retrial on July 15, 2016 by the same court on July 15, 2016.

Criminal facts

“2017 Highest 1052

1. Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act;

A. On September 24, 2017, the Defendant: around 06:05, the victim D operated by Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 24, 2017, the Defendant 1: (a) opened a 0-type “H operated by the victim D; (b) opened a 1stm of the victim’s 2nd of the above cafeteria building using the cresh in which the victim completed his/her business; (c) opened its windows adjacent to the above cafeteria; (d) opened the 5th of the victim’s house at the 0th of the 0th of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1st of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 1st of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 1st of the 0th of the 0th of the 0th of the 7th of the 0th of the m.

D. On September 28, 2017, the Defendant removed and intruded the victim L’s house windows located in Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul, and removed approximately KRW 5,000 from the bank of the victim who was suffering from clothes at that place.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen the victims' property.

2. Special robbery;

On September 28, 2017, the Defendant discovered that the victim (the victim 22 years of age) served as a mixed person while purchasing beer, etc. at the N convenience point in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M during the night hours, and raised money and valuables at that place to raise the cost of living.

On September 29, 2017, the Defendant: (a) entered the convenience store above 03:43, and took a deadly weapon (22 cm in total length, 10 cm in length, and 4) that was prepared in advance for the said victim; (b) prevented the victim from resisting by threatening him as “inducution of money,” and by threatening him to “inducution of money”; (c) continued to put the excess to the victim, snick, into the calculation unit, and made the victim fright to open a safe on the calculation unit; and (d) took 525,000 won in cash within the said safe. “2017 Highly 1207”

피고인은 2017. 9. 19. 04:50경 광주 동구 P 소재 피해자 QQ, 여, 35세)가 거주하고 있는 다세대주택 2층 202호실에 이르러, 욕실 창문을 통하여 거실에 침입한 다음 위 소리에 잠에서 깨어나 안방에서 거실로 나오는 피해자에게 오른손에 흉기인 칼(길이 20cm 추정)을 들고 "돈을 달라"라고 협박하여 반항하지 못하게 한 후 그 곳 거실 의자 위에 있는 피해자의 가방을 뒤져 금품을 강취하려 하였으나 가방 안에 금품이 없자 곧바로 밖으로 나감으로써 미수에 그쳤다.

Summary of Evidence

“2017 Highest 1052

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of amnesty against 0 police officers;

1. Written statements of R, S, J, G and L;

1. Written statement of the J under 2017 Gohap1207;

1. Each internal investigation report (Evidence List 3, 53, 54), 2017 Gohap1207 (the steam List 23); 1. Each investigation report (Evidence List 15, 25, 26, 28, 34, 46, 59, 62);

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. A copy of the intrusion report;

1. A report on evaluation of criminal damage;

1. A report on the results of field identification;

1. A report on the results of on-site inspections conducted pursuant to Article 207 of the Decree (Evidence List 24);

1. A written confirmation of identity of the thief;

1. The following time: The Internet portal site:

1. Three copies of the photograph, cash, and excessive photograph, six copies of the photograph, four copies of the site photograph, six copies of the photograph, fourteen copies of the photograph, fourteen copies of the photograph, and eighteen copies of the site photograph specified in 207 of the photograph;

1. CCTV images at a H restaurant;

“2017 Highest 12074

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of resignation to Q Q;

1. Each report (Evidence list 3, 5, 7);

1. Investigation report (Evidence List 9);

1. A report on results of field identification (Evidence 13);

1. Letters of fingerprints appraisal results, verification of identity of the robbery case, and a written appraisal;

1. Ten copies of a photograph, five photographs, and fourteen copies of a photograph:

1. Investigation report (Evidence List 43 of Evidence, No. 2017, 1052);

1. One copy of the search results of prisoners, criminal records, etc., and the current status of personal confinement;

1. Ten copies of the judgment rendered: "Habitualness in the market";

1. Recognition of theft habits in light of various circumstances, such as the record of the crime, the method of crime by which the crime was committed, and the distance between the crime committed before;

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, 331(1), and 330 of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively including habitual larcenys), 334(2) and (1), 333 of the Criminal Act (Special Robberys; Selection of Specific Robberys); Articles 342, 334(2) and (1), 333 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Articles 35 and proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37(former part), 38(1)2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes within the limit of proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act as provided for in the special robbery with heavier punishment and the nature of the crime)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months to twenty-five years;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crimes: Special robbery;

[Determination of Punishment] Robbery, General Criteria, Type 2 (Special Robbery)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Three to Six years of imprisonment (Basic Area)

(b) Concurrent crimes: Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act;

[Determination of Punishment] thief crime, thief under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, and 2 types (Habitual thief)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Two or Four years of imprisonment (Basic Area). The Second Crimes are attempted to commit a crime of attempted special robbery, and the sentencing criteria do not apply to such crimes.

(d) Scope of final recommending punishment according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years (limited to the lowest limit of the scope of sentencing after the handling of multiple crimes in each of the above crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set, since crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which no sentencing criteria are set are concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37

3. The crime of this case committed by the defendant habitually intrudes on the residence of the victims at night, or by destroying and damaging part of the structure of the victims at night, and thus thefts the victims' property, while carrying a deadly weapon, and the crime of this case is not good. The defendant committed each of the crimes of this case again within the repeated period after the execution of the sentence was completed, even though he had been already punished several times due to habitual larceny crimes, and the defendant did not take measures to recover damage or receive a letter from the victims. In light of the above, it is inevitable to punish the defendant strictly.

However, considering the fact that all of the crimes of this case are recognized and reflected by the defendant, the fact that the victims' damage amount is not relatively large, etc. in favor of the defendant, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and method of the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case shall be determined as ordered.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

For the presiding judge or judge;

The same judge's identity

Judges Lee Young-young