본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
인천지방법원 부천지원 2014. 7. 25. 선고 2014고합115 판결

[특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)][미간행]

Escopics

Defendant

Prosecutor

The highest court (prosecution), Jinjin (Public Trial)

Defense Counsel

Attorney Jeon Sung-ju (Korean)

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Criminal facts

On March 27, 1997, the Defendant was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc., and on October 7, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) in the Goyang Branch Branch of the Seoul District Court on October 7, 2004. On November 29, 2012, the Seoul East District Court sentenced one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the Seoul East District Court on February 1, 20

The Defendant, around 05:00 on June 11, 2014, carried out one of the smartphones business equivalent to KRW 958,00 in the market price owned by the Nonindicted Party on the victim's side by taking advantage of the diversities of the divers and divers in the Goyang-gu, Goyang-gu ( Address omitted).

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Prosecutions and police suspect interrogation records of the accused;

1. The police statement of the Nonindicted Party

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records and investigation reports (Evidence No. 12);

1. Habitualness of the judgment: The recognition of dampness in light of the fact that the person committed the instant crime under the same kind of Acts and subordinate statutes at least four months after the completion of the execution of punishment due to each of the criminal records, the criminal method, and the theft of the same and the same criminal method in the judgment;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act.

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Articles 35 and proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered as favorable to the reasons for sentencing)

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for a period of three years to twenty-five years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Types 1 (general habitual and repeated thief) for Habitual thief)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field: Imprisonment of three to six years (the maximum and minimum range of sentence shall be increased by 1.5 times since Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes falls under Article 5-4(6))

3. Determination of sentence: Three years of imprisonment; and

The crime of this case was committed by larceny and was sentenced three times or more to imprisonment with prison labor, and the defendant who has not been sentenced to four months or more since the execution of punishment due to the larceny of the same Act was completed, and was committed again without weighting even during the period of repeated crime, and the nature of the crime is bad and highly dangerous in society. Therefore, it is inevitable to sentence sentence to the defendant corresponding to the liability for the crime.

However, the fact relevance of the crime of this case is recognized and against the defendant, the damage caused by the crime of this case is not severe, and the damage is recovered, and all of the sentencing factors in this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and living environment, motive, means and result of the crime, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined within the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines as ordered according to the sentencing guidelines.

Judges Shin Jae-gu (Presiding Judge)