beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case against the defendant shall be reversed.
The crimes of Article 2(A) of the judgment of the defendant are each crimes.
Reasons
1. The defendant case;
A. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for a total of 25 years (5 years of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes set forth in paragraph 2(a) and paragraphs 1 and 2(b) and 2(k) of the decision of the court below (20 years of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes set forth in paragraph 2(a)) is too unreasonable.
B. (1) Determination (1) Of the instant facts charged, the summary of larceny in the instant facts charged was as follows: “Around September 23, 2004, the Defendant collected one bank’s credit card from the “V” convenience store located in U of Seocho-gu Seoul, and withdrawn KRW 300,000 in cash by inserting the password known to his female, and continuously withdrawing KRW 70,000 in cash by using the above R-owned Samsung Card. Accordingly, the Defendant stolen the cash of KRW 1 million in total.”
However, on November 5, 2007, the court below held that although the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny on the part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Busan District Court, on the part of the above facts charged, most of the previous criminal convictions, including the previous criminal convictions, were stolen by means of taking away another's goods, which were incurred in the thief from the thief, and that this part of the crime was committed by taking advantage of credit cards, etc. after taking advantage of credit cards, and withdrawal of money from the stief from the stief by taking advantage of credit cards, etc., the type of the crime was entirely different, and that this part of the crime was committed only once by withdrawing money from the stief, and thus, it was difficult to readily conclude that the crime was caused by the Defendant's robbery, the res judicata effect of the above final judgment does not extend to this part of the crime.
However, the court below duly adopted and examined.