logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.09 2017고합440
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 15, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to four years of imprisonment for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Seoul Central District Court, and on May 16, 2014, sentenced to three years and six months to a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Seoul Central District Court, and was sentenced to a new trial on February 17, 2017 by the decision of the Constitutional Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on March 6, 2017.

On April 8, 2017, at around 01:07, the Defendant: (a) brought KRW 150,000 in cash owned by the victim D, which the victim D was under the account book for the settlement of the string of the string of the 201st floor B-55 of the Jung-gu Seoul metropolitan store; (b) was stolen; (c) around April 18, 2017, around the victim E’s 3rd floor A-93 of the above 3rd floor, the Defendant stolen the victim E’s 122,00 won in cash owned by the victim E, who was on the display stand of the 2nd floor of the 3rd floor in Seoul, Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, which was under the account book for the string of the string of the string of the 2017 floor.

As a result, the defendant was sentenced twice or more to larceny, etc. and habitually commits larceny within three years after the execution of the sentence is completed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. The written statement of D (the Defendant asserted to the effect that, on April 8, 2017, the theft amount of the larceny crime was KRW 7 to 80,000,000, the victim’s statement concerning the amount of damage was challenged. However, there is no discovery of circumstances to suspect the credibility of the victim’s statement concerning the amount of damage, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected).

1. Each investigation report (the examination of damaged photographs, CCTV inside a commercial building, victim and on-site CCTV investigation, hearing of statements of damaged amount);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: A reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, personal confinement status, investigation report (related to a certificate of confinement, a criminal suspect's previous conviction and attachment of written judgments, etc.);

1. Habituality in the holding: Each judgment.

arrow