2011Gohap 517 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)

○○ (83 - 1)

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

In case of inside the place of registration, the deceased

The number of times of detention (prosecutions) and the number of Gangnam (public trial)

Attorney Lee In-bok (Korean National Assembly Line)

April 16, 2012

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Facts of crime

On June 27, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the ○ District Court on March 16, 201, and was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for the same crime at the ○○ District Court on December 17, 2003, in addition to the completion of the execution of the above sentence at the ○○ District Court on March 16, 201, and one year and six months of imprisonment for the same crime at the ○ District Court on May 10, 2005.

On August 26, 201, the Defendant habitually worked at the “○○○○○○○○○○” convenience store located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Seoul around 10: (a) used the gap in which the victim Kim○○, who is another employee of the above convenience store, performs the settlement of burial, and (b) used the gap in the above victim Kim○○○○’s office located on his own, to cut off the cash amounting to KRW 50,00 won and four credit cards located within the wall and KRW 920,000,000,000 and KRW 4,000,000,000 won and KRW 5,000,000 on August 31, 201; (b) used the 4,000,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 1,000,000,000 won and 4,000,000,000 employees.

4. On September 9, 2011: around 10, 201: Around 10, at the convenience store “○○○○○-dong”, the Defendant, an employee of another place of convenience, entered the above convenience store office to rest while working as an employee, and cut off the cash amounting to KRW 220,000,000,000, which is the cash owned by the female, from the bank of the victim Kim○-○, who was an employee at that place, and was under the said convenience store, KRW 30,000,000, which is the cash owned by the victim ○○-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The written statement of the police officer Kim○-○;

1. A written statement on the preparation of Kim○-○, Lee○-○, Park○-○, and Kim○-○;

1. Previous records of judgment: A inquiry report on criminal records, etc., investigation report (report on confirmation of the expiration of the term of punishment), personal identification number/ confinement status, investigation report (Attachment to written judgments), five copies of written judgments;

1. Habituality of the judgment: Application of the statutes to the extent that the relevant criminal act was committed several times within a planned period of time after the records of each of the crimes in the judgment and about five months after release, which are similar to the number of crimes in the instant case, are recognized;

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, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act.

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

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there is no habitual nature of larceny, since the defendant has stolen objects, such as the statement in the facts charged, but it is not stolen by the realization of the theft habit.

In light of various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court, including the following: (a) the Defendant had been subject to punishment for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) three times; (b) the Defendant committed a crime of this case on the day he was employed at a convenience store in a short period; (c) the Defendant appears to have been employed at the convenience store for the purpose of larceny from the beginning; (d) the Defendant committed a crime of this case again on the part of about five months after the execution of the final punishment was completed; and (e) the Defendant committed a false act of this case; and (e) the details of the crime of this last criminal conviction are also stolen after the Defendant was employed at a convenience store on several occasions; and (e) it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant crime was committed under the Defendant’s urgent economic condition; and (e) it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed a crime of this case on the face of a theft habit. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment for a term of three years to twenty-five years;

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

[Types of Crimes] Larceny; Habitual; Habitual; Larceny; Habitual; Category 1

【Special Convicted Persons】

Reduction elements and increase elements: None

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Area (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is provided for in Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

3. Determination of sentence: Four years of imprisonment; and

Considering the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced three times as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and was committed the instant crime by means of false employment at the convenience store after five months have passed since the execution of the final sentence was completed, and that the Defendant did not endeavor to recover from damage and did not reach an agreement with the victims, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, in light of all the circumstances, such as the amount of damage in this case, the family relation, age, character and conduct, environment, the background, means and consequence of the crime in this case, etc., the sentencing conditions specified in the sentencing guidelines shall be determined within the scope of sentencing guidelines, by taking into account the following factors: (a) the defendant led to the crime in this case; and (b) the defendant is the most supported by his wife and his own mistake; and (c) the defendant appears to have led to the crime in this case due to economic difficulties.

Jurors's verdict and Sentencing's Opinion on the verdict of not guilty (Habituality)

○ The jury’s opinion of conviction and one not guilty (the opinion of larceny is all guilty)

Periodical Sentencing Opinion

○ Jurors: Imprisonment with prison labor for four years and six months;

Three jurors: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years

Two jurors: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years;

For the purpose of harm to judge