2011Gohap1 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)

Fixed0 (760720 - 1), Farm sand;

Housing Dongbcheon-si

- Dongducheon-si in the place of registration

Stopy completion, satisfying

Attorney Park Dai-hee, Man-ju (Korean, Korean, foreign, foreign)

July 18, 201

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Criminal facts

On June 27, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) by the District Court of the Republic of Korea on December 2, 2009, and was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months for the same crime in the same court on December 2, 2009, and completed the execution of the said sentence on April 9, 201.

The Defendant habitually stolen another person's goods at least three times as follows.

1. On April 28, 201, at around 30:30, the Defendant: (a) opened the entrance in front of the 99-house of the victim Park Hacheon-si, and opened the entrance in hand; and (b) committed theft by carrying 10 tools, such as the victim’s net, owned by the victim; (c) one string of the tools; and (d) one string of waste cables, which had prepared in advance the total market price of KRW 200,000,000, total market price of the 200,000,000.

2. At around 00, May 15, 201, the Defendant: (a) loaded the sum of KRW 2,00,000, on hand, on the hand hand, the sum of KRW 2,00,00,000 for Switzerland lease work units owned by the victim Category 98, which were located in the front of the Maducheon-si Mabcheon-si Mabcheon-si Maur Recycling Center; (b) loaded the sum of KRW 4,50,000,000 on the hand, which was located in the front of the Madu-si Madu-si Mab-si Ma.

3. On May 17, 201, the Defendant cut the entrance door to a stringer, which was located in the nearby fingers, and intruded inside, at around 20: 20 per cent of the rate operated by the victim this97, who is located in the Dobcheon-si, Dobcheon-si, Dob-do.

The Defendant, who was located there, stolen the amount equivalent to KRW 160,000, total of the old electric wires owned by the Victim, 200 km, Steincecececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececececece

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol concerning 96, Park 95;

1. Each police statement of this 97 and 98

1. A written statement of Park 99;

1. A protocol of seizure (voluntary submission) and a list of seizure;

1. On-site photographs, on-site photographs of crimes, and photographs of criminal tools;

1. Previous convictions: Statement of criminal records and investigation reports (the confirmation of the date of release of the suspect, the same kind of case as the date of release of the suspect);

Attachment Report of Court Decision)

1. Habituality of the judgment: The records of each crime, the frequency of crimes, the frequency of crimes, and the same kind of crimes under the judgment;

In light of the fact that the defendant is recognized as a habitor of larceny.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 329 and 331 of the Criminal Act

Article 1 (General Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Articles 35 and proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

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

Grounds for sentencing

Considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of repeated crime that has not yet been released even though he had been already punished for the same criminal record and several times, and that the Defendant seems to have a habit of larceny as well as to have a high risk of recidivism in the future, Defendant should be punished strictly.

However, under the circumstances where the defendant committed the crime of this case, he was found to have committed the crime of this case, and partly damaged articles were returned, and the victim Park 99 and Lee97 did not want the punishment of the defendant. The recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines for the crime of this case is for not less than three years but not more than six years (the sentencing guidelines for the crime of this case is for the theft crime group, habitual and repeated theft, the basic area among Type 1 (general habitual and repeated larceny), Article 5-4 (6) of the Special Cases Act, and the upper and lower limit is increased by 1.5 times each.5 times the punishment conditions specified in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's character and behavior, family environment, and circumstances after the crime.

jury verdict and sentencing opinion;

1. A verdict of guilt or innocence;

Five jurors: Statement of guilt in Many General

2. Opinions on sentencing

Four jurors: Imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months;

One juror: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years;

Judges Park Jae-sik

Unloading;

Judge Lee Associate-hoon