beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that recognized the habituality of each of the crimes in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, although each of the crimes in this case is not based on the theft habit.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, habitualness refers to a habition that repeatedly commits the larceny. In light of the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime in the same case, determination of whether habituality exists should be made, by comprehensively taking into account the existence of
(2) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence on April 24, 2007, 201, and a fine of KRW 500,000 on October 15, 201, and was sentenced to a thief on August 16, 201 due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which was sentenced on January 16, 201, and completed the execution of the sentence on October 18, 201. The Defendant committed the same act during the period of repeated crime without being aware of the fact that each of the instant crimes was committed by either a stief or a stief on goods by either the stief or the stief on April 24, 2007, and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence on January 7, 2010, and thus, it is reasonable to view that each of the instant charges constituted a larceny under the Act.
B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s confession of criminal facts, and the amount of damage caused by each of the crimes of this case is not so large, and the victims are recognized as having agreed at the investigation stage, but the Defendant habitually committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crimes despite multiple same criminal records as seen earlier, and the lower court considered all favorable circumstances for the Defendant.