200 Highest 3404 Special Larceny

1. A regular criminal, a 71-year-old, a male, or a daily worker;

Residential Ulsan

2. A person who commits a repeated crime, 70 years old, male, or female worker;

Residential Ulsan

Kim Jin-Jin-Jin (Court of Prosecution) and fishingman (Court of Court of Justice)

October 7, 2020

[Defendant-Appointed] A person who commits a crime committed by the Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. [Defendant Kim Offense] Defendant Kim Offense shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

Criminal History Office

[criminal record] On December 20, 2018, Defendant Kim Jong-chul was sentenced to one year and four months for fraud at the Ulsan District Court, and the execution of the sentence was terminated at the Ulsan District Court on November 1, 2019.

[범죄사실] 피고인들은 합동하여 2020. 7. 8. 23:38경 울산 중구 성남동 '커피' 앞에 정차된 울산 12바○○○○호 택시 안에서, 이전 승객인 피해자 방○숙이 위 택시 뒷좌석에 놓고 간 피해자 소유인 현금 30만 원, 시가 200만 원 상당의 18K 금목걸이 9돈, 시가 180만 원 상당의 18K 금팔찌 8돈, 시가 90만 원 상당의 현대자동차 10년 근속 금메달 24K 3돈, 시가 150만 원 상당의 18K 금팔찌 7돈, 시가 40만 원 상당의 14K 금반지 1돈, 시가 3만 원 상당의 은반지 1개, 시가 40만 원 상당의 삼성 휴대폰 1대가 들어 있는 시가 20만 원 상당의 샤넬 파우치 가방 1개를 들고 갔다. 이로써 피고인들은 합동하여 피해자 소유인 시가 합계 753만 원 상당의 재물을 절취하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the police at each police station;

1. Photographs of damaged precious metals;

1. Records of judgment: A statement of criminal records, etc., one copy of the Highest 2018 Highest 2084 Highest 2084, Ulsan District Court 201877, one copy of the Highest 201877, and one copy of the personal data inquiry;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendants: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

○ Defendant Kim Offense: Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

○ Defendants: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months to 5 years;

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

[Determination of Punishment] thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thalf thalf thalf thalf thalf thal

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, one month to six months of imprisonment [the scope of Recommendations as revised according to the applicable sentences]

Six months of imprisonment (the lower limit of the range of sentence recommended by the sentencing criteria is inconsistent with the lower limit of the applicable sentencing range in the law, and therefore the lower limit of the applicable sentencing range is in accordance with the law).

3. Determination of sentence;

[Defendant's Court-Appointed] In full view of the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, most damaged goods were returned to the victim and agreed with the victim, and other circumstances recorded in the records, such as the Defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment should be determined as ordered within the scope of recommended punishment according to sentencing guidelines.

[Defendant Kim re-offending] The Defendant recognized the instant crime, most damaged goods were returned to the victim, and agreed with the victim, but considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the period of repeated crime, and that the statutory penalty for the instant crime exists only by imprisonment, the sentence of sentence against the Defendant is inevitable, inasmuch as the Defendant was found guilty of the instant crime, given that all other circumstances indicated in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the sentence of sentence against the Defendant shall be determined within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines.

Judges or higher;