logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.08.12 2014고단1676
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 17, 2001, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1 million by larceny, etc., and on July 4, 2002, sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years in one year and six months due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and on January 15, 2008, sentenced two years of imprisonment due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc., of Specific Crimes, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence in the former prison on October 23, 2009.

At around 10:00 on April 15, 2014, the Defendant opened the victim D's house located in Seojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City with an open gate up to two floors, and opened a 2-story window on the 2nd floor that was not locked, and intruded into the house, and opened into the house, and owned by the victim, which was in custody in the Ansan-gu Special Metropolitan City, and owned by the victim, at least 400,000 won of the market price of the 14K gold Ban in an amount equivalent to 150,000 won of the market price, one gold pool in an amount of 1.4 KK 1,450,00 won of the market price, one gold pool in an amount of 4.50,000 won of the market price, three gold bars, 240,000 won of the market price, and 1.4 million won of the market price.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement of D and E;

1. A inquiry report, such as criminal records, investigation reports (reports attached to previous records and court rulings), copies of written judgments, and current status of personal identification and acceptance of each individual;

1. Habituality of the judgment: Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the repetition of the crimes of this case, which are the same kind of criminal records, criminal methods, and the records of the judgment in the judgment;

1. Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the selection of imprisonment for a limited term concerning the crime;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation;

1. The range of recommendations shall be limited to habitual larceny and repeated larceny;

arrow