beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors or misapprehension of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) is a crime of which the defendant committed the crime in this case with the remaining contingent charges because he was unable to maintain his house and livelihood, and which cannot be seen as the formation of a theft and habition because it is different from the acceptance method of the previous larceny crime. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on habituality, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment
The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
Habituality in a judgment of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny, and the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive and method of the crime in the case should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habituality exists.
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant was subject to juvenile protective disposition on June 30, 2009 as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, i.e., the Defendant received juvenile protective disposition on the grounds of special larceny on January 27, 201, 1 year of probation on August 8, 201 due to special larceny on December 7, 201, 200 million won, and 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor on December 14, 201, and 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor on the grounds of special larceny on December 14, 201, and 3 years of criminal records and precious metals inside another person’s residential premises or commercial premises, and thus, the Defendant could have committed the crime in this case’s crime by mistake of facts in light of the legal principles as to the Defendant’s charges in this case’s charges despite the same type of repeated offense.
This case's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing.