Whether Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes should be applied to the crime of violation of Article 5-5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (affirmative)

The purpose of Article 5-5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is to punish a person who has been sentenced to punishment for robbery, injury by robbery, robbery, or attempted crime and again commits such crime within three years after the completion of or exemption from the execution of punishment, and to punish him/her in accordance with the statutory punishment prescribed in the same Article. Meanwhile, the crime of violation of Article 5-5 of the same Act constitutes a specific violent crime under Article 2(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes, and it is reasonable to determine the punishment within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for repeated crimes pursuant to Article 3 of the same Act.

Article 5-5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 2(2) and 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-chul

Daegu High Court Decision 2005No336 decided Jan. 5, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. 60 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The purpose of Article 5-5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) is to punish a person who again commits a crime within three years after having been sentenced to punishment for the crime of robbery, injury by robbery, robbery, or the attempted crime, or having been exempted from punishment. Meanwhile, the crime of violation of Article 5-5 of the Special Crimes Act constitutes a specific violent crime pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes (hereinafter “Specialized Crimes Act”), and it is reasonable to determine the punishment for a punishment within the scope of the punishment aggravated for a repeated crime pursuant to Article 3 of the Specialized Crimes Act.

The first instance judgment maintained by the court below applied Article 5-5 of the Aggravated Punishment Act to the defendant's crime of injury by robbery of each robbery of this case, and then it is right to take measures to aggravated repeated crimes pursuant to Article 3 of the Aggravated Punishment Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to aggravated repeated crimes.

In addition, in full view of the motive and background of each of the crimes of this case by the defendant, method and consequence, circumstances after the crime, age, character and conduct, family relation, level of education and experience, etc., the sentencing of the court below against the defendant is acceptable, and there is no obvious reason to recognize that the sentencing of the court below is extremely unfair.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)