2013 Highest 185 A. Special larceny

(b) Intrusion upon residence;

(c) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(d) Damage to property;

Above 1. A. D.

2.(c)(B);

White trial (prosecutions) and trial rooms (public trial)

C Law Firm, Attorney D (for the defendant)

August 13, 2014

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a year.

However, the execution of each of the above punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

1. The sole criminal conduct of Defendant A;

(a) Intrusion upon residence;

On September 25, 2012, around 20:0, the Defendant entered the victim F's house located in 105 dong 721, the E-building 105 dong 721, and opened a door and intruded on the victim's residence.

(b) Damage to property;

When the defendant arbitrarily changes the identification number of the above stop in the above s to the above date and at the above place, the defendant thought that the above s to find the defendant later, opened a cover of the stop and changed the identification number by opening the front cover of the stop after opening the stop and covering the stop again, thereby impairing the utility of the digital drawing of the above stop of the victim's possession.

2. Defendants’ co-principal conduct

The Defendants thought that the above victim had escaped due to the two-way contact, and conspired to steal the victim’s house by intrusioning on the victim’s house, and thereby thefting the bank and clothes owned by the victim.

(a) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

On September 26, 2012, the Defendants entered the ‘H’ of the above changed password into the digital drawing, and entered the above gate with Defendant B, and entered the said door door and the said door door.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly intruded upon the victim’s residence.

(b) Special larceny;

피고인들은 전항 기재 일시경 위 피해자의 안방에서 피해자 소유 시가 60만원 상당의 에르메스 카피 가방 1개, 시가 40만원 상당의 루이비통 카피 가방 1개, 시가 40만 원 상당의 샤넬 카피 가방 1개, 시가 35만원 상당의 루이비통 카피 가방 1개, 시가 15만원 상당의 루이비통 카피 지갑 1개, 시가 30만원 상당의 샤넬 카피 가방 1개, 시가 15만원 상당의 샤넬 카피 지갑 1개, 시가 17만원 상당의 구찌 카피 가방 1개, 시가 11만원 상당의 핑크색 보세 가죽가방 1개, 시가 4만원 상당의 보세가방 1개, 시가 7만원 상당의 네모난 보세가방 1개, 시가 15만원 상당의 파란색 보세 가죽가방 1개, 시가 120만원상당의 모피 조끼 1개, 시가 30만원 상당의 자켓, 점퍼등 약 20벌, 시가 400만 원 상당의 치마, 원피스등 약 40, 시가 30만원 상당의 트렌치코트 1개, 시가 50만원 상당의 악세사리세트, 시가 20만원 상당의 시계, 악세사리 팔찌 약 15개, 시가 50만원 상당의 청조끼등 약 6벌시가 35만원 상당의 구찌 가방 1개, 시가 30만원 상당의 스카프 약 8개, 시가 30만원 상당의 상자, 바구니 등 합계 10,840,000원 상당의 물품을 가지고 나왔다.

As a result, the defendants stolen the victim's property together.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the second protocol of trial

1. Statement made by a witness I in the third protocol of the trial;

1. A report on investigation (to be accompanied byCCTV photographs);

1. Photographs of damaged articles;

[The defendant's act of removing the possession of the victim's property against his will for the purpose of securing credit and transferring the defendants' exclusive control area to the exclusive control area. It is sufficient to view that the defendants had the intent of unlawful acquisition even though the defendants did not intend to permanently hold the economic interest of the goods on a permanent basis.]

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendants

Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act (joint residential intrusion and choice of imprisonment), Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (special larceny)

B. Defendant A

Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (personal intrusion, choice of imprisonment), Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the damage of property, the occupation of the damage of property, the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

In full view of the conditions of sentencing favorable to the Defendants, including the following: (a) the Defendants’ property and mental harm inflicted upon the victims by abusing their status as creditors; and (b) Defendant B was committed by multiple violence offenses; (c) the conditions of sentencing unfavorable to the Defendants; and (d) the Defendants are recognized and contradictory to the Defendants; (b) the victims do not have any punishment; and (c) there are some circumstances that may be taken into account the motive and background of the instant crime, which appears to have been committed probly by failing to perform their obligations; and (d) the sentencing conditions favorable to the Defendants, as well as other factors of sentencing specified in the pleadings of the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime.

Judges Lee E-hoon