2017Gohap816 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)

A

Mara (Court) and Kim Tae-tae (Court)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

September 8, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Criminal facts

【Criminal Power】

On November 30, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Seoul Central District Court, for one year and six months, and on June 14, 2013, at the Jung-gu District Court sentenced the Defendant to three years for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and on February 23, 2016, the execution of the said punishment was completed at the military prison on February 23, 2016. On November 17, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor at the Jung-gu District Court for larceny, etc. on May 8, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

Around July 29, 2017, the Defendant, in the state of having weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorders, was placed in the “E located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D” managed by the victim C (E, South and 34 years of age) on July 18:57, 2017, and the Defendant, in the display stand, placed 14K gold-baks of 600,000 won displayed in the display stand, and stolen another’s property habitually.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Investigation report (Attachment toCCTV video) and the closure and output of CCTV images;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records, written judgments, and personal confinement records (140 pages of investigation records);

1. Habituality: The defendant is a criminal record who has been punished several times due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the defendant repeatedly commits the crime of this case in the same kind within a short time after being released from the prison, and thus, can be admitted as a habit for the larceny crime.

1. The point of mental and physical disability: According to the statement of a welfare card (the 36 pages of the investigation record), the defendant is found to have a mental disorder 2, and according to the above evidence, the defendant can be found to have discovered the fact that the victim, etc. sees the CCTV screen and stolen the reflectd in the display site between the victim, and immediately discovered the fact. In light of the defendant's medical history, the crime of this case, and the circumstance of detection, etc., the defendant can be found to have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder at the time of the crime of this case.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Mitigation of mental disorders;

Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for one year and six months to twenty-five years; and

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of thief] Class 2 of the thief Act on Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment (Habitual thief)

【Specially Maternal Person】 A mentally ill-minded person (no one shall be responsible for him)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, one year and six months to three years

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years; and

In that the defendant has been punished several times due to the same crime, and the defendant has repeatedly committed the larceny crime at the time of the release of the crime, and the responsibility for the crime is heavy.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case in a state of mental disorder due to mental disorder, relatively minor and the amount of damage was immediately recovered, and considering favorable circumstances that the defendant reflects and repents his mistake, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime of this case, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered.

The presiding judge, the Kim Jong-dong

Judges Kim Gin-han

Judges Doi-ro