logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.02.19 2014노18
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the frequency, period, method, etc. of the instant crime, the instant crime ought to be deemed to have led to the Defendant’s theft habits.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, considering that the defendant has no habituality, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles on habituality, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant was the first offender with no criminal power, and that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant committed the instant crime in a professional and planned manner, and rather, the Defendant’s crime of larceny appears to have been continuously committed under the very imminent economic circumstances, and that the Defendant had a record of continuously thiefing in 2005 on one occasion of the following facts: (a) it is insufficient to recognize that the instant crime was based on the Defendant’s theft habit; and (b) on the grounds that there was no other evidence to acknowledge habituality, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove the crime.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's determination that the defendant was not guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as argued by the prosecutor.

This part of the Prosecutor’s argument is.

arrow