beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
seizure.
Reasons
1. In view of the fact that the summary of the grounds for appeal did not grasp the Defendant’s living condition, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime, the lower court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the judgment of the court below is reversed as follows.
In the trial of the court, the prosecutor with regard to the amendment of the indictment applied for the amendment of the indictment to add the crimes referred to in Article 1-4 (d) through (f) of the Criminal Act to the charges of "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief)" against the defendant, and the court has changed
B. Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court deemed the Defendant’s act of larceny and the act of intrusion upon residence as a separate crime and deemed the Defendant as concurrent crimes.
However, in the event that a person commits habitual larceny under Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes intrudes upon his/her residence as a means of committing a crime, an intrusion upon his/her residence is absorbed into habitual larceny, and only one crime of habitual larceny is established, and it is not established separately.
In addition, in a case where a person who habitually commits larceny was injured by his/her residence for the purpose of habitual larceny in addition to the crime in question, and even in a case where he/she is found to have been aware of habitual larceny, his/her act of intrusion upon residence shall be incorporated into another habitual larceny, thereby constituting only one crime of habitual larceny (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Do1573, Dec. 26, 1984). This legal principle equally applies to the crimes stipulated in Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which are an aggravated element of the crime under Article 5-4(1).
In the case of this case, the records are recognized.