beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment imposed by the court below on the Defendants (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the instant facts charged against Defendant B is as follows: (a) from February 6, 2013 to April 20, 2013, Defendant B, as indicated in [Attachment Table Nos. 1 and 6] from February 6, 2013 to April 20, 2013, stolen the assets of the victims solely or jointly with Defendant A; (b) the judgment was based on the following: (c) habitual nature in larceny refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny; and (d) the existence of criminal records of the same type of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime in the instant case should be comprehensively considered.
(2) According to the records, Defendant B was sentenced to a fine of 300,000 won due to special larceny on December 7, 2010, and a fine of 300,000 won due to special larceny on September 22, 201, and 8 months due to the special larceny on June 13, 2012. However, considering that the frequency of the instant crime is only two times, it is difficult to conclude that the instant crime was caused by Defendant B’s outbreak of larceny, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge its habitualness.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that Defendant B had habitual nature of larceny is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, Defendant A’s confessions and reflects the crime, agreed with the victim F, and the fact that Defendant A appears to have the possibility of edification because he did not yet reach the age is favorable to the Defendant. However, even though there have been many records of punishment for the same kind of crime, Defendant A again commits the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, and the lower court has already reflected the favorable circumstances as above and sentenced the lowest sentence after mitigation.