Materials recognizing habitualness of protective dispositions and larceny under the Juvenile Act;

The recognition of habituality in larceny can be recognized only when the crime of larceny can be recognized as the realization of larceny in relation to the criminal facts committed several times, and the fact that the protective disposition under the Juvenile Act has been issued is also a material to recognize habituality.

Article 332 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Do1255 delivered on July 24, 1973, 83Do2137 delivered on December 13, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 84Do69 delivered on March 27, 1984

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Han-chul

Seoul High Court Decision 86No2925 delivered on December 4, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

In the case of larceny, the recognition of habituality cannot be viewed as habituality only with the fact that there were several criminal records of larceny, and it is possible to recognize habituality only when it can be recognized that the crime in the judgment in relation to the criminal facts committed several times is the origin of larceny (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do69 delivered on March 27, 1984).

In addition, the fact that the protective disposition under the Juvenile Act is imposed also should be considered as data to recognize habitualness.

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below, in light of the motive and method of the crime in the judgment of larceny (including protective disposition under the Juvenile Act) such as the first head of the judgment of the defendant, and the fact that the defendant repeats the same kind of crime as the judgment in the judgment of the court of first instance only with six months after the release, etc., the defendant's habitual nature is recognized as to the crime in this case. On the basis of the records and comparison with the records, the first instance court's measures such as the above are justified and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to habitual nature such as the theory of lawsuit

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 judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)