Aggravation of repeated crimes in violation of Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (affirmative)

Even in the crime of violation of Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, if a criminal record satisfying the requirements for aggravation of a repeated crime as prescribed in Article 35 of the Criminal Act exists, the aggravation of a repeated crime

Article 35 of the Criminal Act, Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2564 delivered on November 24, 1981 (Gong1982,90) 85Do1000 delivered on July 9, 1985 (Gong1985,1152) 85Do1434 delivered on September 10, 1985 (Gong1985,1374)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee In-hee

Seoul High Court Decision 90No4051 delivered on March 8, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that recognized criminal facts at the time of the defendant's original trial, and there is no error of finding facts without evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, in the crime of violation of Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, if there is a criminal conviction meeting the requirements for aggravation of repeated crimes as provided in Article 35 of the Criminal Act, it is the opinion of the party member that the repeated crime should be aggravated (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do2564 delivered on November 24, 1981, Supreme Court Decision 85Do1434 delivered on September 10, 1985), and the decision of the court below that has aggravated repeated crimes pursuant to the above opinion is just and there is no error of law application like the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, this issue argues unfair sentencing, but on which a sentence of less than 10 years has been imposed, an unfair sentencing decision cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and the forty-five days of detention days after the appeal are included in the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)