beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Article 5-4(5)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes violates the principle of clarity according to the request of the principle of no punishment without law, violates the principle of prohibition of double punishment, and prescribes excessive punishment contrary to the principle of proportionality between responsibility and punishment, so it cannot be deemed unconstitutional.
We cannot accept the allegation that this provision is unconstitutional or that the judgment of the court below applied this provision.
Article 5-4(5)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applies to cases where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, or the attempts thereof, again commits a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act (including an attempted crime) and is punished as a repeated crime. As such, even though the court below was sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times due to a special larceny, larceny, or a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, it is justifiable that the court below applied this provision to the defendant who again commits a attempted larceny within three years after the execution of the sentence is completed, and there is no error
In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and argued the misapprehension of legal principle as well as the mental and physical disorder of the defendant as the grounds for appeal, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal, such as the mental and physical disorder of the defendant other than the unfair sentencing
In this case, there is an error of misconception of facts in the judgment below.
The argument that the Defendant was in a mental disorder at the time of committing the instant crime cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.