A case in which habitual nature of larceny or stolen intermediary cannot be recognized;

When the defendants continue to keep up at the same place between one month and one month for each crime of larceny or stolen arrangement and the victim's criminal intent and means are the same, it is difficult to recognize the habituality of larceny or stolen arrangement.

Articles 332 and 363 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants and the Prosecutor (Defendants)

Yeongdeungpo Branch Court of Seoul District Court (75 High Gohap998)

The appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor shall be dismissed respectively.

The first point of Defendant 1’s appeal is that the above defendant did not commit this case and arranged stolen goods at the request of the non-indicted 1 who is an accomplice. The court below found the above defendant guilty. The second point of the appeal by the above defendant and the second point of the appeal by the defendant 2 are unreasonable, and the prosecutor’s appeal by the court below did not recognize habitualness against the defendants. The first point of the appeal by the court below is that there is an error of law by mistake of facts that may affect the judgment, and the second, the sentence imposed by the court below is too too unfeasible and unfair. In light of this case’s records, the court below’s determination of facts against the defendants is not proper, and it is not reasonable to accept the defendant’s appeal by considering that the defendant 1’s case was committed continuously at the same place as the defendant, and the defendant’s motive and behavior were identical to that of the victim and the crime, and thus, the court below’s decision is not proper to accept the defendant’s appeal by considering the following circumstances.

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)