2014Gohap310 A. Special robbery

(b) Special larceny;

1. A or unemployed;

2. B or non-permanent;

This purification (prosecutions) and the number of stuffs (public trial)

Defense Counsel-at-law

December 5, 2014

Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

The two keyss (No. 6), 1 punishments (No. 7), 2 amblicks (No. 8), 1amblicks (No. 9), 1amblicks (No. 9), amblicks (No. 80cm in length) shall be forfeited from the Defendants, and 1amblicks (No. 3) shall be forfeited from the Defendants.

A seized Oral Flapire (No. 1), one (No. 1), one (No. 2), one (No. 2), one (No. 4,000 won), and four (No. 5,000 won No. 4) shall be returned to the victim C, respectively, to the victim, for whom the name of the victim of the Oral Flapire (No. 2) is unknown.

Facts of crime

1. Special larceny;

A. On October 7, 2014: at around 09, the Defendants discovered otoba in the alleyway located in the south-gu, Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, and Defendant B reported to the network, Defendant A forced to return the locking device by using the key prepared in advance by the above B, and then Defendant B was on the back of the Otoba, and driven Defendant B on the back of the Obaba.

As a result, the Defendants committed a theft of 120,000 won of the market price owned by the victim, F. F. 125C GTS 1.

B. On October 8, 2014: around 30, at around 30, the Defendants found the G Award in the Dong-gu, Ulsan-si, as soon as possible in front of the street, and Defendant A reported the net, and Defendant B brought the above he reported the network.

As a result, the Defendants, together, stolen one of the health boars owned by the victim who could not know his name.

C. On October 8, 2014: around 40, the Defendants discovered the fact that the Defendant Company C was suffering from a studio stoke in the street near the Hasto apartment located in the winter-gu, Ulsan-si, Ulsan-si, and found the studio stoke in the body of the victim C, and Defendant A reported the network, and Defendant B brought the above h tomar.

Accordingly, the Defendants, together, stolen one health boar influorial color, owned by the victim C.

2. Special robbery;

The Defendants, as stated in paragraph 1(a), stolen the Otoba, and attempted to steal the money while driving the above Otoba, but failed to find the object of the commission of the crime, conspired to commit the robbery of convenience points. The Defendants’ face, such as described in paragraph (1)(b), stolen two hars of the Defendants, such as the 1-B, and continuously Defendant B continued to work, borrowed one hurba from an employee at the Otoba where he was working. The Defendants 1-B, from the employee at the Otoba, took one hurba from the employee at the Obasta where the luraba was located, and sent the luraba in

On October 8, 2014: around 05: around 01, the Defendants discovered that the victim J (19 years of age) was in active convenience stores operated by the victim D, who was in the Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., and entered the above convenience store with the victim J (19 years of age), respectively, and Defendant A was in the above convenience store with the camping net, and Defendant A was in his hands, and Defendant B threatened the above J with “h’s hand,” and Defendant B threatened Defendant B as “a du imposing tax on, and imposing tax on, the money in question.”

The Defendants jointly and severally prevented the victimJ from resisting as above, and forced the saidJ to take 171,000 won in cash owned by the victim D from the saidJ.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement to J, E, and C;

1. Statement of seizure of each police;

1. A report on internal investigation (Securing a fitness worn in the course of committing a crime) and a report on investigation (Attachment to the caps of CCTV for a special thief);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of photograph (Evidence No. 6), photograph (Evidence No. 13) (Evidence List No. 23) and photograph (Evidence List No. 23)

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment (the Defendants)

Articles 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of special larceny), 334(2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act (the point of special robbery and the choice of limited imprisonment)

1. The Defendants among concurrent crimes (the Defendants)

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment for Crimes of Special Robbery with Gross Mutandis Punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation ( Defendants)

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of each Criminal Code (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. Confiscation (the Defendants)

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Return to a victim;

Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act grounds for sentencing; 1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months from June to June 22

2. The recommended sentencing criteria; and

(a) Crimes of special robbery;

[Determination of Type] No. 2

【Special Esponsor of Punishment (Esponsor of Mitigation and Victims of Special Robbery, taking into account the fact that the owner of convenience store among victims of mitigation and special robbery expressed his/her intention not to punish him/her

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months to 4 years (the area of mitigation)

(b) Special larceny;

[Determination of Type] thief Case No. 2

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of six months to one year and six months (the basic area)

(c) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months to four years;

3. Determination of sentence;

On October 19, 2012, Defendant A was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for special robbery and four years of suspended execution, etc. at the Ulsan District Court on October 19, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 27, 2012, and committed the same crime repeatedly without being aware of the current suspended execution. Defendant B was prosecuted in the Ulsan District Court on October 10, 2014 and was under investigation at the Ulsan District Public Prosecutor’s Office, but the investigation was made at the same time, and thus, there is a high possibility of criticism against the Defendants. Furthermore, in order to identify the Defendants, Defendant A was under investigation into a stolen face and used for a special robbery. In addition, taking into account the confidentiality of the criminal plan and the risk of the Criminal Act, the Defendants cannot be subject to strict punishment, considering the fact that the Defendants were under the time of the crime, and even if the Defendants did not compensate for any damage, the Defendants did not have yet expressed their age.

In addition, the sentence like the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendants’ criminal records, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime.

Justices Kim Jong-soo

Judges Cho Jin-san

Judges Kim Young-young