beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the name of the crime and the applicable provisions of Acts in the trial before the judgment on the grounds for appeal, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
3. Thus, the judgment below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is as follows, except for the correction of “AC” No. 12 of the annexed list of crimes in the judgment below as “AD”, and thus, it is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Articles 332, 329, and 342 of the Criminal Act, comprehensively including applicable provisions of the relevant criminal facts and the choice of punishment, and Articles 332, 329, and 342 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment [a habitual offender¡± refers to a crime of so-called excessive shape, which is to be applied to a single crime when the same kind of act is repeated habitually. Thus, if multiple acts of the same kind are recognized as habituality, the act of the same kind of act shall be included in the most severe punishment and shall be punished as one crime (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1359, Jul. 14, 198). Each of the larceny and attempted larceny of this case shall be punished as a single crime (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1359, Jul. 14, 199). Thus, it is reasonable to rate it as a concurrent crime of habitual larceny, not as a single crime of habitual larceny.