(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.5.2. 선고 2014고합360 판결

On March 17, 1973, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Seoul District Court’s Seoul District Court’s East Branch on March 28, 1986, sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the Seoul District Court’s East Branch on August 28, 2001, and sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) at the Seoul District Court’s Sungnam Branch on May 27, 2005, and sentenced to 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) at the Seoul Central District Court on April 30, 208, and completed the execution of the sentence on May 13, 2013.

On January 27, 2014, at around 19:00, the Defendant discovered a new active bus stops located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 370, and a road located in the bus stops located in the Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and found the victim D1, who opened a bank on the rear side, such as the following, used the combined gap in order to steal the wall from the bank, and then cut off the wall at the market price undeveloped with cash, identification card, credit card, etc. owned by the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen another's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Busbox photographs, brailleers worn by a suspect at the time of committing a crime, and transportation card photographs used at the time of committing a crime;

1. Each investigation report (the specific number of the victim's transportation card, confirmation of the use of the suspect transportation card, the time during which the victim uses the transportation card), details of bus use (C), filling and specification of the transportation card using the suspect, and CCTV data for filling the suspect transportation card (E convenience point) ;

1. Statement of criminal records, etc. inquiry (A), investigation report (former records, court rulings, and confirmation of repeated crimes), 200 highestest 12611, 200 highest 12611, 201307, 2009 highest 1370, 2008 highest 1595, Sungnam 2005 highest 790;

1. Habituality of judgment: Recognition of dampness in light of the records of each crime, the number of crimes, and the same kind of crimes committed several times in the judgment;

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

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

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

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

The thief of this case is merely a criminal defendant who committed an thief by drinking, not by the realization of the wall of larceny.

2. Determination

Habitualness in larceny refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny. Determination of habituality ought to be made by comprehensively taking into account the existence of criminal records of the same kind and the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime in the case (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009).

On May 13, 2013, the Defendant committed the instant thief by taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence: (i) the Defendant, as indicated in the judgment, had the record of criminal punishment for a total of six times for the same crime; (ii) the Defendant committed the instant thief in only eight months after having been sentenced to punishment on May 13, 2013; and (iii) the Defendant committed the instant thief in most past thiefs in a bus where the victim’s management was neglected; and (iii) the Defendant committed the instant thiefs in a bus where most of the thiefs were mixed and flafed; and (iv) the instant thiefs in a bus where the Defendant was selected by many people to commit the instant stief by using the time zone from which the Defendant was congested. In full view of the fact that the criminal law is similar to each other, and the motive, means, and methods of the instant thiefsing.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for three years to twenty-five years; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Habitual Larceny. General Habitual Larceny.

【Special Convicted Person】

[Extent of Recommendation] Three years to six years of imprisonment [the scope of sentence (the maximum and minimum range of sentence (the length between two years and four years) shall be increased by 1.5 times, respectively, since it falls under Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the basic area of punishment]

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

As seen earlier, in light of the fact that the Defendant is not only disqualified for the suspended sentence as a repeated offender, but also falls under the category of larceny, and that social ties are highly likely to repeat a crime, and the victim's damage has not yet been recovered, a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor is inevitable for the Defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, the frequency of the crime is only one time and the amount of damage is relatively small, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc.