201No571 Violation of Oil Pipeline Safety Control Act, special larceny

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant B and Prosecutor (Defendant A. C and D)

Jeon Young-young (Institution of Prosecution) and Lee Young-young (Public Trial)

Attorney Park Do-young (Korean National Assembly Line for Defendant A)

Article 000 (Attorney B for Defendant B)

Attorney Park Jong-soo, et al., Counsel for defendant C and D

Daegu District Court Decision 2011Gohap265 Decided November 16, 2011

February 23, 2012

The part of the judgment below against Defendant A and C shall be reversed.

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

The evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, which was seized, No. 872, 201, from Defendant C, No. 8.

9. 13. 16 No. 16 can be seen respectively by Defendant A.

The document No. 4, 5, 67.10, 11, 12, 18.19 of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office that was seized shall be delivered to the victim corporation, dopco.

All of the appeals filed by Defendant B and prosecutor against Defendant D are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant A, C, and D is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on Defendant B’s appeal

The defendant, while making a confession of a crime, is against his wrongness.

However, the crime of this case takes a systematic role with multiple accomplices to install oil-saving facilities on the oil pipelines and to steals oil, and the method of the crime of this case is secret, interview, and planned.

Social harm and injury is a major crime, such as high risk leading to environmental pollution or large straw, and distorted distribution markets, such as petroleum. A person who steals oil of KRW 1.4 billion over several months, and the period of crime is a long-term period and the amount of damage is very large. The role of the defendant who confirmed pressure at the scene of the crime and adjusted valves is not easy, and the profits that the defendant acquired is not much much significant, and the victim wants to make a severe punishment against the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, means and methods of crimes, and the results of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is not deemed to be too unreasonable.

B. Determination on the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant A and C

Defendants have led to the confession of crimes and the mistake.

However, as seen earlier, the instant crime is organized, planned, and dangerous or malicious, and the duration of the crime is over a long period, and the scale of damage is large.

Defendant A was in charge of carrying oil deducted from oil pipelines into oil tanks by preparing oil pressure protections connected to valves installed on oil pipelines in advance. Defendant C also takes charge of carrying and transporting oil deducted from oil pipelines into oil tanks and directly disposing of them. In the course of the entire crime, the proportion of the roles assigned to the Defendants cannot be underassessment. Some of the circumstances of the Defendants’ disposal of oil was confiscated. However, the Defendants’ arrest and seizure or the police officer’s arrest, and the ratio of the total amount of damage to the amount of damage so that it is difficult to reflect the profits significantly in sentencing. Moreover, there was no agreement with the victim, and the victim sought to punish the Defendants.

In full view of these circumstances and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced the Defendants to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor is deemed to be too uneasible and unreasonable.

C. As seen in front of the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant D’s appeal, there is a need to strictly punish Defendant in light of the fact that the instant crime is organized, planned, dangerous, or socially harmful nature, and that the amount of damage is very large.

However, the role of the defendant is considered to be the network, and the proportion of the whole crime is not relatively significant, and the defendant is against his confession while making a confession of the crime.

In full view of these circumstances and all of the sentencing conditions in the instant argument, it is not recognized that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unjustifiable.

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the defendant B and the prosecutor against the defendant D are without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant A is with merit, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part against the defendant A and the defendant C among the judgment below is reversed and it is decided as follows.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

Since the facts of the crime recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

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

Article 13(1)2 of the Safety Control of the Oil Pipeline Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the installation of facilities on oil pipelines for the theft of oil, each choice of imprisonment), Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the charge of special larceny)

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes with Punishment prescribed in Violation of the Safety Control of Corresponding Punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du1168, Apr. 1, 200

1. Number of views;

Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Article 333 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for issuing victims;

Judge Lee Jin-man

Judges Lee Young-chul

Judges or higher -