2013 Highest 3624 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny), Fraud

A person shall be appointed.

Ison (prosecutions) Maternia, Maternia (Public Trial)

Attorney Jeong Jae-chul (Korean National Assembly)

January 13, 2014

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Criminal History Office

【Criminal Power】

The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Daegu District Court on January 23, 2002 and one year and six months for the same crime at the Changwon District Court on August 22, 2003, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Busan District Court on September 4, 2007 and two years and six months for the same crime, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Busan District Court on March 16, 2010 for three years for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the Daegu District Court on February 8, 2013.

It is a person who has completed the execution and has a habit of larceny.

[Criminal Facts]

1. Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act;

On March 21, 2013, the defendant habitually requested the victim to buy tobacco on March 21, 2013 from "Cp" of the victim B operated in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, to enter the customer, and to sell tobacco to the victim.

On the other hand, the victim stolen 100,000 won in cash owned by the victim within a bank under the other knife crebs, and the victim stolen it from around 20 to October 20, 2013, together with 50 times in total, as shown in the annexed crime list, the victim stolen the other person's property worth KRW 33,409,000,000.

2. Fraud;

A. On September 18, 2013: at around 50, the Defendant’s “E House of Victim D’s Operation in Kimhae-si”:

of this section, even if any alcoholic beverage is provided, there is no intention or ability to pay the price, and the completion is normal.

As if you would pay the drinking value, you immediately received from the victim the alcoholic beverages and the alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 17,00 in 17,00 from the victim, such as beer 2 disease.

B. The Defendant: (a) around September 21, 2013: (b) around 00, the main point of “Gway for the F operation of the Victim F in Ulsan-gu.”

In fact, even if you are provided with alcoholic beverages, they were committed as if they did not have the intention or ability to pay the price but did not pay the price normally, and they were immediately provided by the victim with the alcohol and the alcohol equivalent to 33,000 won of the market price, such as beer five diseases, and acquired it by fraud.

C. On October 20, 2013, at around 23:00, the Defendant committed as if he had no intent or ability to pay the price, and even if having received alcoholic beverages, he was provided with alcoholic beverages, and the Defendant acquired it by deceptioning the victim’s immediately after being provided with alcoholic beverages of an amount equivalent to KRW 25,000,00, market price, such as beer 3 bottles, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of each accused;

1. H, 00, 00, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, F,000, 000, 0000, 000, 000, 000, 000, D, 0000, 000

Each police statement protocol on police;

1. Each statement of the defendant;

1. 00, B, 00, 00, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, D, 000, 000, 000, 000, 0000, 001), 000, 000, 0000, 000, 000;

00, 00, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000;

00 Written statements, 000

1. Seizure report (voluntary submission);

1. Each photograph and on-site photograph;

1. A report of investigation (as to the calculation of damages);

1. For each previous record: A inquiry report on each criminal record, etc., investigation report, and judgment attached thereto;

this chapter (Nos. 191, 192) Nos. 42355 of evidence

1. Habituality of the judgment: Each criminal history, method of the commission of crimes, frequency of crimes, and planned and organized for the same kind of crimes as the judgment;

in the light of the repeatedness of each such class, and the recognition of dampness

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Article 5-4(5) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 329 of the Criminal Act (Habitual thiefsing, Selection of Imprisonment) Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of each Criminal Act (each fraud point, choice of each imprisonment with labor)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35, proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act (as to each of the judgment), Article 35, proviso to Article 42

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50, and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is a basic crime among the above crimes, is a crime falling under the category 1 of habitual and repeated theft according to the sentencing guidelines, and it seems that particular aggravated or mitigated factors are visible.

Therefore, after selecting the basic area and reflecting the punishment for each of the above crimes of fraud, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances shown in the trial and records of this case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Jae-han

1) Nos. 89 in the evidence list 2013 type 42355 (a report on the occurrence of a name of evidence (a simple theft), but in fact, a statement 000)

2) Each theft act in the holding was prosecuted for a repeated theft under each special law, but it was based on the expression of habituality, and therefore, it is reasonable to view it as an inclusive crime of habitual larceny.

the date of the request.

3) The judgment of larceny constitutes a repeated crime, but since the crime is already assessed as a repeated crime in the application of the above special special law, it does not repeat the aggravation of a repeated crime again.