A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)

B. Habitually Transported Goods

(c) Habitual acquisition of stolen goods.

1. A.

2.(c)(B);

3.(a) C.

4.2.D

5.2.2. E

6. (a) F

7.(c) G.

Woo-man Park

Attorney H (Defendant A, B, D, E, F, and G)

Law Firm I (for Defendant C)

J., Attorney J

July 18, 2008

1. Defendant A’s imprisonment of four years, Defendant B, C, and F shall be sentenced to one year and six months, and Defendant D’s imprisonment of three years, Defendant E, and G shall be sentenced to one year, respectively.

2. As to Defendant A, B, and C, three days of detention prior to the rendering of this judgment, and as to Defendant D and G, one hundred and twenty one day of detention prior to the rendering of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant F.

3.Provided, That the execution of each of the above sentence shall be suspended for five years for Defendant D, for two years for Defendant E and G, for three years for Defendant F, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and for three years for Defendant F.

4. To order Defendant D, E, F, and G to be put on probation during the period of each suspended sentence.

5. To order Defendant D to provide community service for 200 hours each of 80 hours to Defendant E, F, and G.

Criminal History Office

Defendant D and Defendant E operate their respective gas stations, between Defendant A and Defendant E are siblingss, and Defendant G is the same as Defendant A and E’s eighth degree of relationship, and Defendant A, B and G are the same as each middle school Dongs.

1. Defendant A and F

On July 3, 2006, between 20:30 to 04:00 on the following day, the Defendant F made use of oil facilities, including high voltage strings, pressures, and injecting machines, installed at the oil pipelines for the purpose of cutting petroleum from the 5km points in Seoul direction from the Gyeong Highway located at Samsung-si to 04:00, the 30-day truck (this 50-day truck) from 50-day to 40-day, the 15-day truck from 05-day to 40-day, the 15-day truck from 0-day to 50-day, the 15-day market price of the above 10-day truck (this 40-day truck), the 5-day truck from 05-day truck from 10-day to 50-day truck from 40-day to 50-day, and the 15-day truck from the oil pipelines installed at the above 10-day port price (this 5-day).

2. At the rest area of the Gyeong Highway located in R R at the time, racing, and the date, time, time, time, from November 20, 206, Defendant G 180,80 liters market price of 15,400 liter market price of light oil stolen by Defendant A and F was suspected of being equivalent to 23,100,000 liter market price of 15,40 liter at P tank (the text pressure No. 501) and transported Defendant D’s gas station located in Daegu-gu, from that time to November 20, 206, at 49 times, such as gasoline 180,80 liter market price of 268,706,40 liter market price of 336,000 liter market price of 402,3602,602,3600 liter market price of 200 liter and 400 liter market price of the above.

3. Defendant B

From around 20:30 on January 4, 2007 to around 04:0 of the next day, Defendant A and F suspected of the fact that the market price of 18,000 liters via the transit, which was stolen from around 20:30 to around 04:0 of the next day, is equivalent to 27,00,000 liters market price of 18,000 liters, but they transported to the P tank (No. 501 of the main equipment pressure) by the same method as from around August 12, 2007, from around 61 to 150 of the attached list of crimes (1) 441,200 liters and 623,674,600 liters and 905,4005,401, 106, 1006, 2016, 3000 liters and 150 liters and 16,3016

4. Defendant A and B

From around 20:30 on September 14, 200 to around 04:0 of the next day, Defendant A: (a) operated a valve with the head of the above five tons truck connected to the oil pipeline in the manner referred to in the above paragraph (1) and (b) so that oil of the oil pipeline flow into the above five tons truck tank; (b) Defendant B stolen the oil of the above five tons truck from around 20:30 to around 00 on February 5, 200, at the same method, from around 30:0 of gasoline market price of 18,00 liter market price of 30,60,600 liter and 151 to 221 on July 5, 2008, with the same method as 367,400,509,700 liter and market price of each of the above five tons truck as 50,605,605,297,700 liter and market price of each of the same method.

5. Defendant A, B, and C

From around 20:30 on February 10, 208 to around 04:0 of the following day, Defendant A and B introduced oil from oil pipelines to the tank of the above 5 tons in the same manner as the above paragraph 4, and transferred oil from oil pipelines to the tank of the above tank 35,360,00 liter market price of gasoline 20,80 liter and 5,800 liter market price of gasoline 5,800 liter and 5,800 liter market price of gasoline from around 200 to around 04:0 on March 11, 2008, Defendant C did not enter the above crime list (1) by the same method, including gasoline 80,80 liter and 205 liter and 305 liter and 205 liter and 205 liter and 205 liter and 305 liter and 200 liter and 305 lit price of petroleum.

6. At the time and time limit set forth in paragraph (1) of the above Article, Defendant A and Defendant F: (a) suspected of having discovered that the light oil 15,400 liter market price of KRW 23,100,00,00, which was stolen by the same method as the above paragraph (1) was charged with sale by Defendant A from March 10, 2008; (b) from then on, until March 10, 2008, the number 1 to 215, 217, 218, 220, 220 through 229 of the above list of crimes (1) was operated by Defendant D by the same method; (c) the above UP station operated by Defendant A, V retail stores located in the same place; and (d) 1,117,012 liter market price of KRW 634,60,400, 206, 2006, 307, 2008.

7. From January 31, 2008 to March 10, 2008, Defendant E. 20:30 on the following day: (a) at the gas station in the operation of Defendant Y in Gumi-si; (b) at the gas station in Gumi-si from January 31, 2008 to around 04:0, Defendant A and B: (c) at the gas station in Gumi-si; (d) the light oil market price of KRW 27,000 liter market price of KRW 20,000; and (e) the light oil price of KRW 20,000 liter market price of KRW 20,000,000; (e) from March 10, 2008; and (e) from March 216 through 229, 2008, Plaintiff A acquired gasoline80,80 liter market price of KRW 1317,200,008; and (e) the market price of KRW 1008.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement corresponding to each of the statements of Defendant A, B, C, and F in this Court; 1. Statement corresponding to each of the statements of Defendant D, E, and G in this Court;

1. In the investigation report (a note delivered to conceal the A criminal proceeds), investigation report (as to attaching copies of sales account books of the U, X-2 station), investigation report (as to the attachment of copies of sales account books of the U, X-2 station), and statement corresponding thereto in the investigation report (as to the quantity of oil and the unit price specified circumstances);

1. From among the records of seizure made on March 11, 2008 by the judicial police assistant, the statement to the effect that each of the P tank 1 unit, 05 tons of stables, 1 unit, Qbscacker 1 unit, air (P) 40 dump (8,000 liter), 5 dump (1,000 liter), 12 copies (240 liter) and 12 copies (240 liter) listed in the judgment of Defendant A were seized;

1. A statement to the effect that among the records of seizure made on March 12, 2008 by the assistant judicial police officers, the defendant A seizes one color pocket book (AD vehicle oil sales account books), etc.

Application of Statutes

【Criminal Facts in the Market】

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A, C, and F: Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act (limited to habitual larceny and inclusive);

(b) Defendant B: Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act (limited to habitual larcenys), Articles 363(1) and 362(1) of the Criminal Act

(c) Defendant D and E: Articles 363(1) and 362(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of each of the Criminal Code

(d) Defendant G: Articles 363(1) and 362(1) of the Criminal Act (with regard to the occupation of habitual stolen transportation, inclusive)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant B: The aggravated punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant B, C, and F: each of the favorable circumstances described in Articles 53 and 55(1)3(3) of the Criminal Code (the following)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendant A, B, C, D, F, and G: Article 57 of each Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant D, E, F, and G: each of the favorable circumstances described in Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for the two-dimensional punishment”);

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendant D, E, F, and G: each Criminal Act Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act; Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act

[Habitualness] Habituality of a crime refers to the tendency of a criminal, which is not the nature that forms the essence of a crime, but the character that forms the character of a criminal. Thus, the existence of habituality shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the offender’s age, character, occupation, environment, transition, motive, method and place of the crime, time interval with the previous crime, similarity with the contents of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6176, May 11, 2006, etc.). Even if there was no criminal record, it shall be deemed that the habituality of the crime may be recognized in light of the offender’s age, character, occupation, environment, and transfer, motive, method and place of the crime, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do304, 83Do666, Apr. 12, 1983).

In this case, for a period exceeding two years, Defendant E was 235 times, Defendant B was 175 times, Defendant C was 14 times for a period exceeding one year, Defendant F was 150 times for a period exceeding one year, and Defendant G was 49 times for four months, and Defendant D was able to take the lead of several gas stations, and Defendant E continued to operate gas stations with an interest and care after paying business registration under his name.

Each of the crimes of this case is recognized as having almost the same target and method of the crime, the repetition and continuity of the crime, the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed in a professional and organized manner, and the fact that each of the crimes of this case did not seem to have been contingent. In full view of these circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendants' theft, delivery of stolen goods, and acquisition have been caused by each of the crimes of this case.

(In the case of Defendant C, the total number of participation is 14 times including attempted larceny, and the number of larcenys is sufficiently recognized in that it committed the theft as above during a period exceeding 14 years, and it appears that Defendant C had an intent to continue larceny together with Defendant C. In light of this point, the determination on Defendant D, E, and G’s assertion may be made.

1. The assertion;

Although the above Defendants acquired or transported oil from an investigative agency to this court, they believe that Defendant A had no material or duty-free oil, etc., and they believe that the oil in the judgment was stolen, they denied criminal facts in the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of acquiring stolens, the perception of stolens is not required to be a conclusive perception, and it is sufficient to have dolusent perceptions to the degree of doubt that the stolens are ambiguous, and the issue of whether the stolens have been aware of the fact that they are stolens is bound to be recognized by considering the status of the stolens possessor, the nature of the stolens, the transaction cost, and other circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904, Dec. 9, 2004). The same applies to the crime of transporting stolens.

B. Determination on Defendant D’s assertion

Although Defendant A also made a statement as shown in the Defendant D’s assertion, the following circumstances recognized by the record, namely, ① Defendant D was closely related to Defendant A’s operation of the U gas station (the Defendant A recommended to find Defendant D and the gas station once during May 2006. From then on June 3, 2006, he was aware of the fact that U gas station was leased to Defendant D from June 2006, and that the time of business commencement coincide with that of Defendant A’s operation of the oil station (the date of business commencement at the above gas station) without any reasonable doubt that Defendant D’s management period of U gas station was more than 3 months, and that Defendant D’s management of the oil station was considerably suspected than 10 years ago (the date of business commencement at the gas station).

C. Judgment on Defendant E’s assertion

피고인 E는 주유소의 사업자등록을 자신의 명의로 하게 된 경위에 관하여 피고인A가 단순히 "사업자등록을 하나 내달라"고 부탁을 하여 이를 해 준 것일 뿐 판시 기름이 장물인 점은 몰랐다고 주장하고, 피고인 A 역시 이에 부합하는 듯한 진술을 하고 있지만, 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 피고인 E는 피고인 A가 이전에 아버지 속을 많이 썩이고 나쁜 일도 하였으며 돈 씀씀이가 큰 것을 보고 걱정이 되었다고 진술하면서도, 피고인 A로부터 주유소 사업자등록을 내 달라는 부탁을 받자 마자 스스로 이를 발급받은 점(피고인 E는 경찰에서 피고인 A로부터 주유소 운영 권유를 받고 피고인 D을 만나 주유소에 대하여 이야기를 들은 후 괜찮은 생각이 들어 주유소를 하면 이익금이 발생할 것으로 생각하여 투자한 것이라고 진술하다가, 검찰에서는 피고인 A로부터 단순히 사업자등록만 내 달라는 부탁을 받아 이에 응했다는 취지의 진술을 함), (②) 주유대금이 입금된 통장 2개와 도장 역시 피고인 E가 직접 관리한 점, ③ 피고인 E는 2008. 2. 1.경부터 피고인 D으로부터 3~4회 정도 일일장부 보는 방법을 배우고 그 후에도 가끔씩 업무를 배웠으며, Z주유소의 소장이던 AB으로부터도 주유소 업무를 배웠고, 생산작업 일을 3교대로 하고 있는 중에도 시간을 내어 일주일에 3번 정도 주유소에 출근을 한 점, ④ 위 AB은 수사기관에서 주유원이 차량 위에 올라가 유류의 양을 체크하려고 하자 피고인 E 및 D이 확인하지 말라고 하여 그만두었고, 그 뒤로는 유류사입에 대하여 전혀 관여하지 못했으며, 본사에서 4회만 유류를 공급받은 외에 나머지 필요한 양은 피고인 E가 피고인 D을 통하여 다른 곳에서 사입하였고, 피고인 E에게 정유사가 아닌 곳에서 유류를 받는데가 어디냐고 물으니 그냥 대리점에서 공급받는다고 하여 그렇게 알고 있었다고 진술한 점, ⑤ 그 밖에 피고인 E와 피고인 A는 형제 사이인 점 등을 더하면 피고인 E는 확정적 인식은 아니라 하더라도 판시 기름이 장물일지도 모른다는 의심을 하면서 피고인 A로부터 위 기름을 받았다는 점을 넉넉히 인정할 수 있다. 그러므로, 피고인에 대한 위 공소사실은 합리적 의 심의 여지 없이 이를 유죄로 인정할 수 있다.

D. Determination as to Defendant G’s assertion

Defendant G, upon Defendant A’s request, accepted a large-scale driver’s license upon the request of Defendant A, and there is no fact that Defendant G has received comments as a result of such acceptance. Moreover, Defendant G retired from the said service after the fact that the duty-free duty-free duty-free duty-free duty-free duty was illegal.

I asserts that it is called.

Although Defendant A made a statement as shown in the Defendant G’s argument, the Defendant G voluntarily made a statement that he had known at the investigative agency that he would bring oil remaining after transporting the oil of this case. Even according to the above statement, the oil transported by Defendant G would be stolen; ② The frequency of the crime of this case committed by Defendant G was 49 times from July 3, 2006 to November 20, 206, and transported was 49 times, and the quantity of oil was transferred for four months from November 20, 206, and if Defendant A her again put oil into the tank 5 tons of truck, the act was carried by Defendant G after moving the oil again, and the time of the crime was almost 11 hours after the night, and there is no doubt as to the oil transport without any doubt as to the above facts charged. Therefore, it may be sufficiently acknowledged that Defendant A was guilty of the oil transport without any reasonable doubt.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendants are divided in depth of their mistakes, and there is no previous conviction (the defendant A, C, D, and G are only criminal records, and the defendant F is only criminal records of suspension of execution in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act around 1994). The defendant F is only criminal records of suspension of execution in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act around 1994). The victim is almost entitled to recover damage, and the defendant F and G are only responsible for the crime of this case at his own will in the case of defendant F and G.

However, the crime of this case is committed by using the fact that it is not easy to steals oil from oil pipelines, thereby systematically stealing it, and transporting it directly or directly to gas stations, and acquiring and selling it. The crime of this case is committed repeatedly over a long period of time, taking into account the fact that the crime of this case was committed repeatedly, the method of committing the crime, the amount of damage, etc., and the nature of the crime is very bad.

In particular, Defendant A, as the principal offender of the instant case, has a high possibility of criticism, and the sentence of heavy punishment is inevitable. In addition, Defendant B and C took part in the instant crime for a long time, Defendant B and C decided to receive profits from theft of Defendant A and oil later. Although the duration of Defendant C’s participation is relatively short, Defendant C’s participation in the instant crime is relatively short, it would act as an unfavorable condition, and the statutory penalty for the crime of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is also heavier than imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than three years.

In addition, the conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as character, conduct, family relationship, and circumstances after crimes, shall be comprehensively considered to determine the punishment as per the disposition.

The presiding judge, appointed judge;

Judges Excellent

Judges Civil Service Bureau