The number of crimes committed in the event of habitual theft and robbery;

When a person commits habitual larceny and robbery, he/she is a concurrent crime of habitual larceny and robbery.

Article 5-4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendants

Seoul District Court (85 High Court Decision 1294)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for four years, by imprisonment for five years, and by fine for one hundred thousand won, respectively.

When Defendant 2 does not pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 10,000 won into one day.

One hundred and twenty-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above imprisonment.

The seized resident registration certificate shall be destroyed by a photographic part of one (No. 3) of each certificate, and shall be returned to the non-indicted victim.

Defendant 2 shall be ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine.

The grounds for appeal by Defendant 2’s defense counsel are as follows: (a) with respect to each special robbery described in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 1(1) of the judgment of the court below, the court below committed an unlawful act affecting the conclusion of the judgment by admitting the fact that the defendant committed such a crime without all of the defendants committed such a crime; (b) the second and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of the Defendants and Defendant 1 are unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable; and (c) the gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable

First, considering the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to the defendant 2's assertion of mistake of facts, the above defendant 1. (c) (2) and (3) of the above defendant's special robbery, which the court below decided, can be fully recognized, and the above argument is groundless.

Next, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor, the court below ex officio examined each of the so-called 1 and 3-called and the so-called 1 and 5-called 1 and 5-3 of the judgment of the court below, respectively, as stated in the judgment of the court below, shall be deemed to fall under Articles 5-4(3), 334(2), and 333 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and shall be regarded as habitual robbery. Since each of the so-called Defendants among the above-called Defendants falls under 1-D(1) through (6) and 2-5(b) through (5) of the above-mentioned defendants, it is clear that all of them constitute habitual larceny, and therefore, the court below, which comprehensively included this crime, committed an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is unnecessary to determine the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor, the defendants and their defense counsel, and the party members are again decided as follows.

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the determination of habituality in the summary of the evidence and the evidence related to the crime acknowledged as a member of a party is the habitualness of Article 5-4(3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 334(2), and Article 333 of the Criminal Act which the defendants recognized as a member of the party, and the so-called "1-4(1) through (6) of the defendants in each of the above-mentioned special larceny acts and the so-called "1-4(1)-1-5(1)-5(5) of the defendants 2-2 are all the special larceny acts, and thus, the court below, covering these crimes, has erred in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by erroneous application of the law. Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is unnecessary to determine the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the prosecutor, the defendants and their defense counsel, and the party members are again decided as follows.

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the part on the judgment of habituality in the summary of the evidence of the judgment below regarding the crime acknowledged as a member of a party is deemed as having been punished by larceny and special larceny as seen above; and (b) the robbery and the crime of larceny as indicated in the judgment during a short time several times; and (c) the method, method and motive of the crime in this case; and (d) the circumstances before and after the crime in this case, etc., the defendants can be recognized as having each habit of robbery and larceny; and (b) the facts of the judgment are the same as the time of the original judgment except for the change into “as it is sufficient to prove all the facts.”

Article 5-4(3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter referred to as "Special Act"), Article 34(2), Article 333, and Article 342 of the Criminal Act, each of the above provisions of Article 5-4(1), Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 331 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that the above provision shall be imposed on the victim by stipulating that the above provision of Article 1.1. A, Article 3, 3 and 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be imposed on the victim, and that the above provision of Article 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be imposed on the victim, and that some of the above provision of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be imposed on the victim, and that the above provision of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes No. 5 shall be imposed on the defendant 2's of the Act.

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

Judges KimHun-tae (Presiding Justice)