(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.5.16. 선고 2014고합290 판결

On March 23, 200, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and on December 7, 2001, by the same court on December 1 and 2001, for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes (thth thief) in the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court stated in the indictment) for the same offense in the same court on December 22, 2006. On January 15, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years for the same offense in the same court on December 2, 2013.

1. At around 01:00 on February 12, 2014, the Defendant entered 30,000 won in cash on the part of the victim E, who operated the above store, in a 'D' clothing store of the first floor of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building C, into a house-to-house box where 30,000 won in cash on the part of the victim, who was on the table table, was stored.

2. On February 25, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 01:00, at the “G” clothing store of the first floor F shopping district in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul; (b) 70,000 won in cash on the victim’s ter, who was on a table table, was stored in the outer money room in which the surveillance of the victim H, who operated the said store, was neglected.

As a result, the defendant was sentenced to two or more penalties for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and habitually stolen another's property within three years after the execution is completed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to E, H and I;

1. CCTV closure photographs;

1. An investigation report (No. 10 of the evidence list);

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal history records, etc., written inquiry report (A), each investigation report (Evidence List Nos. 8, 11), and the status of personal identification and confinement;

1. Habituality of the judgment: Recognition of a theft behavior in light of the criminal records of the defendant including the previous conviction in the judgment, the same kind of crime repeatedly committed within a short time after release, and the similarity of the criminal law;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 329 of the Criminal Act

2. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Articles 35 and proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

3. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by sentence: Imprisonment for not less than three years but not more than 25 years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Types 1 (general habitual thief and repeated thief) for thief

【Special Convicted Person】

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Basic Area (at least two years and not more than four years of imprisonment)

[Extent of Recommendation] The imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than six years (in cases falling under Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the upper and lower limit of the sentence range shall be increased by 1.5 times, respectively)

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment and three years and six months; and

Even though the Defendant was sentenced several times to a criminal act of habitual larceny, such as theft of cash at a clothes store in the past, the Defendant committed the instant crime again since three months have not passed since he/she completed the last sentence without any franchisinging it, and attempted to repeatedly steal the gap in monitoring the manager of the managership in the new wall time zone, and thus, the nature of the crime is not very good. In light of the above, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant who still seems to have no awareness of the criminal act itself.

However, on the other hand, there are many circumstances that can be taken into account the motive or circumstance of the crime, such as the fact that the defendant's failure to repeat the crime of this case, as well as the fact that the defendant's failure to repeat the crime of this case has been made again, and that it is difficult to maintain his livelihood because it led to the crime of this case, it appears that the person is in need of emergency life protection who lives in the public announcement center without a certain income and living expenses would have been causing the shortage of living expenses, and the degree of damage is relatively minor. In addition, some of the damaged items were returned to the victim at the site, and the rest was returned to the victim, and the defendant's repayment measures have been completed, and there are many favorable or difficult circumstances that can be considered for the defendant, such as the defendant's personality and conduct, environment, family relationship, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the above sentencing guidelines should be determined in light of the circumstances after the crime.

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