beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months, and Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A led to the confession and reflect on the instant crime.
In addition, the victims related to the crime of special larceny of this case were arrested as a flagrant offender, and all of them were seized, and returned to the victims, and the remaining crimes were committed in favor of the attempted crimes.
However, Defendant A was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in 2006 and was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2,000,000 as an attempted larceny in 2014.
In particular, each of the above crimes is a professional retailing crime against the actors, such as this case, and the defendant A is highly likely to be subject to criticism in that it repeats the same form of crime within a short time.
Defendant
A is also not good in that it proposed Defendant B to commit the instant crime and served as a main agent in the actual crime.
In addition, considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments of this case, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, occupation, background leading to the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime was committed, it is not determined that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable compared to the degree of criminal liability of Defendant A.
Defendant
A’s assertion is not accepted.
B. Although Defendant B had been subject to criminal punishment several times due to the past violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) with respect to Defendant B, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B is somewhat liable for committing the instant retail machine crime with Defendant A in a professional manner.
However, Defendant B was punished for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in 193 and for more than 20 years.