A crime of habitual special larceny, habitual night larceny and theft and blanket offence;

Even if there are several larcenys, the habitual crimes stipulated in Article 332 of the Criminal Code are included in a single crime, and there are different types of habitual special larceny and habitual night larceny.

Article 332 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Do693 Decided June 28, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 3735 delivered on May 24, 1966, Article 332 of the Criminal Code) 66Do693 Decided June 28, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 3801Du3801 delivered on June 24, 196, Article 332 ? 1345 of the Criminal Code)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant

Jeonju District Court in the first instance (68Da2715) and Eup Branch Court in the first instance.

Of the judgment of the court below, the part on Defendant 1 is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

One hundred days of detention days of the original instance against the above accused shall be included in the original sentence.

Defendant 2 and 3’s appeal are dismissed.

110 days out of the number of days under confinement of these Defendants shall be included in the original sentence of the original instance.

First, we examine Defendant 1.

On the other hand, the habitual law stipulated in Article 332 of the Criminal Code is a single crime even though there are several larcenys, and it is also a special larceny, and there are different types of larcenys at night, it cannot be said that two crimes of habitual special larceny and habitual habitual larcenys at night are established on the other hand. The judgment of the court below was imposed on Defendant 1 as concurrent crimes of habitual larceny and habitual larcenys at night on the ground that the types of larcenys at night are two special larcenys and night larcenys at night, and this is a violation of the law which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the part concerning Defendant 1 among the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows:

The criminal facts and evidence relations with Defendant 1, who are admitted as a party member, are as follows: “In combination with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2,” and “Defendant 1,” after evidence 1, together with a statement to the effect that it conforms to paragraph 1-A(7) of the ruling in the court of law of the non-indicted 1, the witness,” and this is the same as the judgment of the court below. Thus, this is cited.

The so-called the judgment by Defendant 1 falls under Articles 332 and 331 of the Criminal Act, and thus, Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years and six months within the scope of aggravated punishment for habitual offenders under Article 332 of the same Act, and one hundred days from the number of detention days of the court below shall be included in the above principal sentence under Article 57 of the same Act.

Next, Defendant 2 and 3 are health care units, and these Defendants are notified of receipt of the records of trial by the party members within the prescribed period, and the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds for appeal, and there are no grounds for reversal ex officio and there is no grounds for reversal of the judgment below. Thus, all of these Defendants’ appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and 110 days out of the detention days after the appeal is filed pursuant to Article 57 of the Criminal Act shall be included in the original sentence.

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

Judges at a high discretion (Presiding Judge)