2017Gohap440 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)

A

Lee Young-Nam (Public Prosecution), half-time (Public trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

June 9, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Criminal facts

On January 15, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Seoul Central District Court. On May 16, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Defendant to three years and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. On February 17, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and completed the execution of the sentence on March 6, 2017.

On April 8, 2017, around 01:07, the Defendant: (a) at the clothing store for the victim’s operation of the Jung-gu Seoul Central District Office, the third floor B-55, brought up KRW 150,000 in cash owned by the victim D, which was under the supervision of the store accounts in which the victim D was temporarily locked; and (b) around April 18, 2017, around 23:35, the Defendant took a theft of KRW 122,00 in cash owned by the victim E, which was under the supervision of the victim E-A-93 of the above commercial building; and (c) around April 18, 2017, the Defendant took a theft of KRW 122,00 in cash owned by the victim E, which was under the display stand of the victim E.

As a result, the defendant was sentenced to punishment twice or more due to larceny, etc., and habitually commits larceny within three years after the execution of punishment is completed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. The written statement of D (the defendant asserts to the effect that the theft amount of the larceny crime of April 8, 2017 is KRW 7-80,000,000,000 for the victim's statement concerning the amount of damage, but it cannot be found that there is any circumstance to suspect the credibility of the victim's statement concerning the amount of damage, and thus, the defendant's assertion is rejected).

1. Each investigation report (the photograph of a damaged article, the confirmation of CCTV inside the C merchant, the investigation of victim and on-site CCTV, and the hearing of statements of the damaged amount);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, personal confinement records, investigation reports (related to the certificate of confinement, suspect's previous record, attachment of judgment, etc.);

1. Habituality of the judgment: The theft habits is recognized in light of the records of each crime, the method of crime, the frequency of crimes, and the same kind of crime as indicated in the judgment (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the crime of this case was not realized habitually because there was time interval between the defendant and the previous crime, but the defendant had the record of punishment several times for the same kind of crime, the number of crimes of this case is similar to that of the previous crime, and the crime of this case was committed during the period of repeated crimes, etc. can be recognized as habituality in light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed in this case

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 (Overall Control)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by imprisonment: Three years to fifty years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] thief under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act (Habitual thief)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, Imprisonment for 2 years, 4 years

3. The modified range of recommendations: Imprisonment for three years - four years (the lowest range of the applicable sentences in law is lower than the recommended range of the recommended sentences.

Since there is a high level, the lower limit of the applicable sentencing type shall be determined by law.

4. Determination of sentence: Three years of imprisonment; and

[Unfavorable circumstances] The crime of this case is not likely to be committed by the Defendant as a theft of other cash in which the business owner did not take the place at night or neglecting surveillance at the clothing store. The Defendant committed the larceny again only once after the release without being aware of the previous criminal record of multiple times. It is more likely that the instant criminal act that steals cash is identical to the prior criminal act in that the instant criminal act that steals cash is identical with the previous criminal act. The damage was not recovered on April 8, 2017.

[Lied circumstances] The amount of damage is not so significant, and in the case of larceny crime as of April 18, 2017, the victim recovered the above damaged article by leaving the stolen cash again after the defendant was discovered at the scene of the crime. The defendant recognized his/her crime against himself/herself.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be comprehensively considered, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered by the order.

Judge of the presiding judge;

Judge Jin-hun

Judges Park Jong-chul