beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. On March 9, 2016, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of special larceny among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, and rendered judgment of acquittal as to the special larceny committed on March 13, 2013, respectively. However, the prosecutor filed an appeal as to the acquittal, but it is separate and confirmed as it did not file an appeal from both parties, the lower court’s judgment against the Defendant is limited to that of acquittal among the lower judgment.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court sentenced Defendant C to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months on April 9, 2015 due to habitual night intrusion larceny (hereinafter “final judgment on habitual larceny”) on November 1, 2013, before the judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “final judgment on habitual larceny”), and became final and conclusive on November 27, 2013 after having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of eight months for special larceny and for a short of six months on November 27, 2013 (hereinafter “final judgment on simple larceny”), and became final and conclusive (i.e., Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013No115, 2013; hereinafter “final judgment on simple larceny”), and (ii) a series of habitual larceny crimes that may be a single comprehensive crime and a single comprehensive crime on the final and conclusive judgment on April 17, 2015.
Even if the above simple larceny was finally binding, the intention of the habitual offender is cut off in substance legally, and a series of crimes in procedural law are separated before and after the above final judgment, and it should be viewed as a separate case.
Therefore, the effect of the final judgment of habitual larceny does not extend to the charges of special larceny of March 13, 2013 of this case.
Therefore, the above facts charged should be sentenced to a separate conviction rather than acquittal.
3. The fact that the defendant led to the confession of a crime and reflects his mistake in the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant A.