logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2006.07.28 2006고단592
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The 87 days of detention before this judgment is sentenced shall be included in the above sentence.

seizure.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 4, 1985, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch of the Daejeon District Court for the crime of larceny, six months in the same court on October 20, 198, one year and six months in prison at the Changwon District Court for special larceny on June 21, 1995, two years and six months in prison at the Suwon District Court for special larceny on April 2, 1998, two years and six months in prison at the Suwon District Court for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the Daejeon District Court Branch of the Daejeon District Court on July 25, 201; the defendant tried to keep the victim from committing the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Narcotics; on August 20, 203, he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the following five months to keep the victim from committing the crime of larceny; on behalf of the victim, Nonindicted Party B, C and other women from the victim from among those who wished to remove on April 15,

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement about witness F and G;

1. Third protocol of suspect examination of the police about B;

1. The police statement of H;

1. A CD (two video images, such as the criminal scene, and the statement of the victim);

1. Seizure records;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records and investigation reports (the fact of convicts and report accompanied by a copy of judgment);

1. Habitualness of the ruling: The application of the law to recognize dampness in light of the fact that each of the crimes in the ruling and the defendant repeatedly committed the retail crime of the same method.

arrow