Supreme Court: "Habitual Theft Also Subject to Enhanced Punishment Under the Special Act"

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that the criminal record of 'habitual theft' for repeat offenders who have been sentenced to imprisonment three or more times for theft-related crimes should also be included as an aggravating factor under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Special Act).

On the 20th, the Supreme Court Division 1 (Presiding Justice Kim Seonsu) announced that it overturned the original sentence of 10 months imprisonment in the appeal trial of Mr. A, who was indicted for theft under the Special Act, and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court.

Mr. A was prosecuted last March for stealing a passenger's mobile phone while they were asleep on the subway. It was revealed that Mr. A had a criminal record of being sentenced to imprisonment three times: for habitual theft in 2015, and for theft in 2016 and 2019.

Article 5-4, Paragraph 5 of the current Special Act stipulates that "if a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment three or more times for theft, nighttime residential burglary theft, special theft, or attempted crimes thereof, commits these crimes again, they shall be subject to aggravated punishment." However, habitual theft is not explicitly mentioned here.

The first trial court applied Article 5-4, Paragraph 5 of the Special Act and sentenced Mr. A to 1 year and 6 months imprisonment. On the other hand, the second trial court applied simple theft, not theft under the Special Act, and sentenced him to 10 months imprisonment. Mr. A argued that since he was punished for 'habitual theft' in 2015, not 'theft,' it could not be considered a crime type subject to aggravated punishment under the Special Act.

The second trial court stated, "Interpreting the law to include habitual theft, which is not included in the wording of the punishment provision, goes beyond the possible scope of interpretation of penal laws and excessively expands the interpretation to the detriment of the defendant," emphasizing "the issue of lightly punishing habitual theft records should be resolved through legislation."

However, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. The court stated, "If simple theft is punished with aggravated punishment when committed three times, but when one of the three theft records is habitual theft, it is punished as simple theft, an imbalance in punishment occurs," and added, "The lower court erred in its interpretation of 'imprisonment' as defined in Articles 329 and 332 of the Criminal Act, which affected the judgment."