The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is an error of law that affected the judgment of the court below, such as a violation of law, as follows:

(1) Despite the fact that 13 of each of the victims of this case is a female, the court below selected four of the seven jurors as a female in the participatory trial, and there was a concern for unfair judgment as a female, and the prosecutor of the public trial was also likely to make unfair judgment. As a result, the defendant was sentenced to an excessive heavy punishment.

The method of each of the larceny of this case is already known to many persons, and thus does not constitute “a case where a person repeatedly commits a crime using a special method.”

In addition, despite the application of the aggravation of habitual offenders under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the aggravation of repeated crimes under the Criminal Act, it is unreasonable to apply the above reasons to the special sentencing factors.

Abstract The lower court omitted the return of one half-month, which is a part of the gold tamp that was seized and a part of the gold tamp.

Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is applicable mutatis mutandis to each thief crime in the judgment of the court below, is unconstitutional because the statutory penalty is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 법률위반 등 주장에 대한 판단 ⑴ 배심원 구성 등에 관한 주장 ㈎ 아래와 같은 사정을 감안하면 국민참여재판으로 진행된 원심의 배심원 선정이 위법하다고 볼 수 없다.

(1) Of the jury of the lower court, “a person who is unable to be selected as a juror” under Articles 17 through 19 of the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) shall not be selected as a juror.

(2) A defendant's defense counsel shall attend a trial for selection of jurors and a prospective juror under Article 28 of Act.