DCCC522/2012 HKSAR v. POSTNIKOV SVYATOSLAV - LawHero
DCCC522/2012
HKSAR v. POSTNIKOV SVYATOSLAV
區域法院（刑事）Deputy District Judge W.K. Kwok16/7/2012
DCCC522/2012
A A
DCCC522/2012
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 522 OF 2012
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v. E
POSTNIKOV Svyatoslav
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: Deputy District Judge W.K. Kwok
H Date: 17 July 2012 at 4:00 pm H
Present: Miss Claudia Ng, PP of the Department of Justice, for
HKSAR
I Mr. Philip Tang Yin of Hampton, Winter & Glynn., I
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
J Defendant J
Offence: (1) Theft (盜竊罪)
(2) to (4) Attempting to obtain property by deception
K K
(企圖以欺騙手段取得財產)
(5) Breach of condition of stay (違反逗留條件)
L L
---------------------
M M
Reasons for Sentence
N --------------------- N
O 1. The defendant pleads guilty to 5 charges. Charge 1 is O
for the offence of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft
P P
Ordinance (Chapter 210). Charges 2 to 4 are each for the offence
of attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to
Q Q
section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance (Chapter 210) and section
R 159G of the Crimes Ordinance (Chapter 200). Charge 5 is for the R
offence of breach of condition of stay, contrary to section 41
S of the Immigration Ordinance (Chapter 115). Particulars of each S
offence can be found in the charge sheet.
T T
Facts
U U
1 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
2. The defendant is a Russian. He arrived at Hong Kong on
24 November 2011. He was permitted to enter and remain in Hong
B B
Kong as a visitor for 14 days from the date of entry. However,
C he did not leave as required. His unlawful stay in Hong Kong was C
terminated only on 8 April 2012 when he was arrested for the
D offences that form the subject matters of Charges 1 to 4. He had D
therefore stayed in Hong Kong unlawfully for about 4 months
E E
during which his mother and friends provided him with living
expenses (Charge 5).
F F
3. In the early hours of 8 April 2012, the victim of
G Charge 1 Mr. Gorden Leung went to a nightclub. He got drunk and G
fell asleep in the street. When he woke up at around 4:30 a.m.,
H he took a taxi home. Later he found that he had lost his mobile H
phone and wallet. Inside his wallet, there was a Cathay Pacific
I I
American Express credit card in his name. Mr. Leung reported the
loss to the police.
J J
4. The defendant picked up Mr. Leung’s lost credit card
K
in a park and kept it for his own use (Charge 1). K
5. On 8 April 2012, the defendant attempted to use Mr.
L Leung’s lost credit card to make purchases in 3 jewellery shops L
in Nathan Road within an hour or so from around 12 noon to 1
M p.m. In the first shop, he tried to buy a gold bar worth M
HK$51,000 (Charge 2). In the second shop, he tried again to buy
N N
a gold bar but on this occasion, the gold bar was with a lower
value of HK$13,797 (Charge 3). In the third shop, he tried to
O O
buy a gold ornament worth HK$5,330 (Charge 4).
P 6. On each occasion, the defendant presented Mr. Leung’s P
lost credit card to the shopkeeper for payment. He pretended to
Q be the genuine holder of credit card with full authority to use Q
it to make payment. However, on each occasion, the shopkeeper
R R
could not successfully complete the credit card transaction.
When the defendant was making the purchase in the third shop,
S S
staff of the credit card centre discovered that Mr. Leung’s lost
T credit card was being misused. He therefore made a report to the T
police, and the defendant was arrested by the police while he
U was still inside the third shop. U
2 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
Criminal record
7. The defendant has a clear criminal record.
B B
C Personal and family background C
8. The defendant is 29 years old. He was born in Russia
D and had undertaken but had not yet completed tertiary education D
there. He was a technician by occupation in Russia until 2003.
E E
He remains unemployed since then. His parents have divorced.
They are still living in Russia. The defendant has also a
F F
younger sister who is still studying and a half-brother.
G G
Mitigation
H 9. Mr. Tang, the learned solicitor for the defendant, H
emphasizes that the defendant is very remorseful for his
I I
offences. Not only was he cooperative in the police
investigation by making full admission, he has also pleaded
J J
guilty in Court, and saved considerable court time and public
K
money that may incur in a trial. K
10. As far as the offences are concerned, Mr. Tang points
L out that the theft committed by the defendant was only a theft L
by finding. He asks me to consider the other charges relating to
M use of the credit card together because they were all committed M
within a short period of time. He tells me that the defendant
N N
committed these offences because he needed money for living in
Hong Kong. He stresses that the defendant was not using a forged
O O
credit card and that nobody had suffered any loss. He refers me
P to the case of HKSAR v Tu I Lang, CACC464/2006 and submits that P
this court should adopt a starting point of less than 3 years
Q imprisonment for these 4 charges. He also refers me to the case Q
of HKSAR v Liana, HCMA385/2004 on the appropriate sentence to be
R R
imposed on Charge 5.
S S
Reasons for sentence
T 11. I shall deal with the sentences for Charges 1 to 4 T
first. I agree that these charges should be dealt with together
U because they formed part and parcel of the same criminal U
3 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
activity. It is quite clear that the defendant picked up Mr.
Leung’s credit card and kept it because he intended to use the
B B
card to make purchases, and all these offences including the
C theft offence took place within the same morning, and the three C
attempts to make use of the credit card took place within just
D an hour or so. D
12. Had the defendant just picked up and pocketed Mr.
E E
Leung’s credit card and had not attempted to use it to make
purchases, it might not be necessary to consider imposing a
F F
prison term, but the serious feature of this case is that he
G actually made use of the credit card to make purchases. A prison G
term is therefore warranted.
H 13. As far as Charges 2 to 4 are concerned, it must be H
emphasized at the outset that credit card fraud is a serious
I I
offence. The Courts in Hong Kong have on many occasions observed
that severe sentences should be imposed on those who engaged in
J J
credit card fraud in order to protect the integrity of the
K
credit card system and the confidence which people were entitled K
to place on this aspect of modern commercial life: HKSAR v Chen
L Wing Hong, CACC40/2005, HKSAR v Chau Yiu Cheong, CACC363/2008. L
14. In the present case, the defendant was well aware that
M he was not entitled to use Mr. Leung’s lost credit card to make M
any purchase. Yet, he attempted to use the card consecutively on
N N
3 occasions to obtain goods although all of them took place
within an hour or so on the same day. He tried to obtain goods
O O
worth a total of $78,594. While the defendant obtained no
P benefit and nobody suffered any loss as a result of his crimes, P
it was just because Mr. Leung had reported loss of his credit
Q card and had therefore prevented the card from being misused, Q
but the defendant’s culpability in these offences has not been
R R
diminished to any extent. Having considered the facts of this
case, I find no reason to depart from the usual sentencing
S S
practice, and conclude that imprisonment is the only appropriate
T sentencing option. T
U U
4 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
15. As to the length of the prison term, the Court of
Appeal has not laid down any sentencing tariff. The sentence
B B
must therefore depend on facts of each case.
C 16. In the present case, the defendant used only one C
credit card. He did not forge the credit card or obtain the use
D of a forged credit card. He came into possession of the card in D
question by chance. Although he is a foreigner, the offences
E E
committed by him have no international dimension. It is also
obvious that he acted alone and that the offences were not
F F
syndicated or organized.
G 17. In TU I Lang, the Court of Appeal stated in paragraph G
10 of the judgment as follows: “Where the facts of the offence
H point to a small unsophisticated operation, involving one or a H
few forged cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially
I I
linking the offender to a larger operation, then a starting
point of three years’ imprisonment or less would be
J J
appropriate.”
K
18. In Tu I Liang, the appellant used a forged credit card K
to purchase a mobile phone with its value not specified in the
L judgment. He also possessed two forged credit cards. The Court L
of Appeal considered that the proper starting point of the
M prison term for these two offences was 3 years’ imprisonment. M
19. While it is correct for Mr. Tang to point out that the
N N
defendant here did not use a forged credit card, I find little
distinction with Tu I Iang. Whether he was using a forged credit
O O
card or a credit card belonging to another person, the defendant
P was still pretending to be someone who had the full and genuine P
authority to use the credit card to make purchases.
Q 20. Furthermore, the defendant had stolen the card, albeit Q
in the course of a theft by finding, and this factor would not
R R
be present if someone was using a forged credit card prepared by
him or given to him by someone else. In considering the
S S
appropriate sentence for this defendant, the overall criminality
T of all offences must be considered. T
21. Besides, the property that the defendant had attempted
U to obtain had a total value of over $78,000, which must be much U
5 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
higher than the mobile phone in Tu I Iang’s case. Having said
that, I am well aware that the value of the property involved is
B B
only a factor, and not the most important factor, in sentencing
C of offences of this kind. C
22. In HKSAR v Kwan Po Keung, CACC79/2011, one of the
D offences committed by the appellant was obtaining property by D
deception. The offence involved the unauthorized use of a credit
E E
card belonging to another person on a single occasion to obtain
property worth around $56,000. The Court of Appeal considered
F F
that a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment appropriate.
G 23. Having considered the facts of this case and the G
authorities, I do not agree with Mr. Tang that the proper
H starting point of the prison term for Charges 1 to 4 should be H
less than 3 years. I am of the view that the proper starting
I I
point should be 3 years imprisonment.
24. As far as mitigating factors are concerned, the
J J
defendant pleads guilty. He is entitled to the usual one-third
K
discount. I have also considered all other factors urged upon me K
by Mr. Tang. The fact that the defendant needed money to live in
L Hong Kong is not a mitigating factor, especially when his need L
was generated by his unlawful stay in Hong Kong. I find there is
M no other factor that reduces the sentences further. I shall M
sentence the defendant for Charges 1 to 4 as follows.
N N
25. In respect of Charge 1, I adopt 3 months’ imprisonment
as the starting point and discounted it by one third to reflect
O O
the defendant’s guilty plea. He is sentenced to 2 months’
P imprisonment for this offence. P
26. For each of Charges 2, 3 and 4, I adopt three years’
Q imprisonment as the starting point for each charge, and giving Q
the defendant the appropriate discount to reflect his guilty
R R
plea, I sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment for
Charge 2, 2 years’ imprisonment for Charges 3, and 2 years’
S S
imprisonment for Charge 4.
T 27. I order the sentences for Charges 1 to 4 to run T
concurrently.
U 28. I now deal with the sentence for Charge 5. U
6 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
29. The defendant is a visitor. He stayed in Hong Kong
beyond his permitted period of stay for about 4 months. There is
B B
no sentencing tariff for this offence. Generally speaking, the
C sentence depends on the length of the period of his unlawful C
stay. The case of Liana is not helpful because the appellant
D there had overstayed for 2 ½ years, which was of course a much D
longer period of overstaying than the defendant’s case here.
E E
30. As I understand it, in the magistracy level, the usual
sentence for an overstayer who has overstayed for 4 months with
F F
no prior criminal record will only be given a suspended
G sentence, which is usually a term of one month imprisonment G
suspended for 2 years. However, it will not be correct in
H principle to impose a suspended sentence on the defendant for H
this offence when he was at the same time given an immediate
I I
term of imprisonment for the other offences.
31. I rule therefore that imprisonment is the only
J J
appropriate sentencing option.
K
32. Having considered the length of his overstaying, I fix K
the prison term after plea at 14 days imprisonment.
L 33. The offence in Charge 5 differs totally in nature from L
the other offences in Charges 1 to 4. For this reason, it is
M open to this Court to order the sentence for this charge to run M
consecutively either in whole or in part to the sentences
N N
imposed for the other charges, subject always to the principle
of totality. However, since the defendant will not normally
O O
receive an immediate custodial sentence but for the fact that he
P was sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment for his other P
offences, I order that the sentence imposed in respect of Charge
Q 5 is to run concurrently with the sentences imposed for the Q
other charges.
R R
34. In other words, the total prison term that the
defendant has to serve for these 5 charges is 2 years’
S S
imprisonment.
T T
U W.K. Kwok U
Deputy District Judge
7 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
DCCC522/2012
B IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 522 OF 2012
C C
----------------------
D D
HKSAR
E v. E
POSTNIKOV Svyatoslav
F F
----------------------
G G
Before: Deputy District Judge W.K. Kwok
H Date: 17 July 2012 at 4:00 pm H
Present: Miss Claudia Ng, PP of the Department of Justice, for
HKSAR
I Mr. Philip Tang Yin of Hampton, Winter & Glynn., I
assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the
J Defendant J
Offence: (1) Theft (盜竊罪)
(2) to (4) Attempting to obtain property by deception
K K
(企圖以欺騙手段取得財產)
(5) Breach of condition of stay (違反逗留條件)
L L
---------------------
M M
Reasons for Sentence
N --------------------- N
O 1. The defendant pleads guilty to 5 charges. Charge 1 is O
for the offence of theft, contrary to section 9 of the Theft
P P
Ordinance (Chapter 210). Charges 2 to 4 are each for the offence
of attempting to obtain property by deception, contrary to
Q Q
section 17(1) of the Theft Ordinance (Chapter 210) and section
R 159G of the Crimes Ordinance (Chapter 200). Charge 5 is for the R
offence of breach of condition of stay, contrary to section 41
S of the Immigration Ordinance (Chapter 115). Particulars of each S
offence can be found in the charge sheet.
T T
Facts
U U
1 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
2. The defendant is a Russian. He arrived at Hong Kong on
24 November 2011. He was permitted to enter and remain in Hong
B B
Kong as a visitor for 14 days from the date of entry. However,
C he did not leave as required. His unlawful stay in Hong Kong was C
terminated only on 8 April 2012 when he was arrested for the
D offences that form the subject matters of Charges 1 to 4. He had D
therefore stayed in Hong Kong unlawfully for about 4 months
E E
during which his mother and friends provided him with living
expenses (Charge 5).
F F
3. In the early hours of 8 April 2012, the victim of
G Charge 1 Mr. Gorden Leung went to a nightclub. He got drunk and G
fell asleep in the street. When he woke up at around 4:30 a.m.,
H he took a taxi home. Later he found that he had lost his mobile H
phone and wallet. Inside his wallet, there was a Cathay Pacific
I I
American Express credit card in his name. Mr. Leung reported the
loss to the police.
J J
4. The defendant picked up Mr. Leung’s lost credit card
K
in a park and kept it for his own use (Charge 1). K
5. On 8 April 2012, the defendant attempted to use Mr.
L Leung’s lost credit card to make purchases in 3 jewellery shops L
in Nathan Road within an hour or so from around 12 noon to 1
M p.m. In the first shop, he tried to buy a gold bar worth M
HK$51,000 (Charge 2). In the second shop, he tried again to buy
N N
a gold bar but on this occasion, the gold bar was with a lower
value of HK$13,797 (Charge 3). In the third shop, he tried to
O O
buy a gold ornament worth HK$5,330 (Charge 4).
P 6. On each occasion, the defendant presented Mr. Leung’s P
lost credit card to the shopkeeper for payment. He pretended to
Q be the genuine holder of credit card with full authority to use Q
it to make payment. However, on each occasion, the shopkeeper
R R
could not successfully complete the credit card transaction.
When the defendant was making the purchase in the third shop,
S S
staff of the credit card centre discovered that Mr. Leung’s lost
T credit card was being misused. He therefore made a report to the T
police, and the defendant was arrested by the police while he
U was still inside the third shop. U
2 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
Criminal record
7. The defendant has a clear criminal record.
B B
C Personal and family background C
8. The defendant is 29 years old. He was born in Russia
D and had undertaken but had not yet completed tertiary education D
there. He was a technician by occupation in Russia until 2003.
E E
He remains unemployed since then. His parents have divorced.
They are still living in Russia. The defendant has also a
F F
younger sister who is still studying and a half-brother.
G G
Mitigation
H 9. Mr. Tang, the learned solicitor for the defendant, H
emphasizes that the defendant is very remorseful for his
I I
offences. Not only was he cooperative in the police
investigation by making full admission, he has also pleaded
J J
guilty in Court, and saved considerable court time and public
K
money that may incur in a trial. K
10. As far as the offences are concerned, Mr. Tang points
L out that the theft committed by the defendant was only a theft L
by finding. He asks me to consider the other charges relating to
M use of the credit card together because they were all committed M
within a short period of time. He tells me that the defendant
N N
committed these offences because he needed money for living in
Hong Kong. He stresses that the defendant was not using a forged
O O
credit card and that nobody had suffered any loss. He refers me
P to the case of HKSAR v Tu I Lang, CACC464/2006 and submits that P
this court should adopt a starting point of less than 3 years
Q imprisonment for these 4 charges. He also refers me to the case Q
of HKSAR v Liana, HCMA385/2004 on the appropriate sentence to be
R R
imposed on Charge 5.
S S
Reasons for sentence
T 11. I shall deal with the sentences for Charges 1 to 4 T
first. I agree that these charges should be dealt with together
U because they formed part and parcel of the same criminal U
3 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
activity. It is quite clear that the defendant picked up Mr.
Leung’s credit card and kept it because he intended to use the
B B
card to make purchases, and all these offences including the
C theft offence took place within the same morning, and the three C
attempts to make use of the credit card took place within just
D an hour or so. D
12. Had the defendant just picked up and pocketed Mr.
E E
Leung’s credit card and had not attempted to use it to make
purchases, it might not be necessary to consider imposing a
F F
prison term, but the serious feature of this case is that he
G actually made use of the credit card to make purchases. A prison G
term is therefore warranted.
H 13. As far as Charges 2 to 4 are concerned, it must be H
emphasized at the outset that credit card fraud is a serious
I I
offence. The Courts in Hong Kong have on many occasions observed
that severe sentences should be imposed on those who engaged in
J J
credit card fraud in order to protect the integrity of the
K
credit card system and the confidence which people were entitled K
to place on this aspect of modern commercial life: HKSAR v Chen
L Wing Hong, CACC40/2005, HKSAR v Chau Yiu Cheong, CACC363/2008. L
14. In the present case, the defendant was well aware that
M he was not entitled to use Mr. Leung’s lost credit card to make M
any purchase. Yet, he attempted to use the card consecutively on
N N
3 occasions to obtain goods although all of them took place
within an hour or so on the same day. He tried to obtain goods
O O
worth a total of $78,594. While the defendant obtained no
P benefit and nobody suffered any loss as a result of his crimes, P
it was just because Mr. Leung had reported loss of his credit
Q card and had therefore prevented the card from being misused, Q
but the defendant’s culpability in these offences has not been
R R
diminished to any extent. Having considered the facts of this
case, I find no reason to depart from the usual sentencing
S S
practice, and conclude that imprisonment is the only appropriate
T sentencing option. T
U U
4 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
15. As to the length of the prison term, the Court of
Appeal has not laid down any sentencing tariff. The sentence
B B
must therefore depend on facts of each case.
C 16. In the present case, the defendant used only one C
credit card. He did not forge the credit card or obtain the use
D of a forged credit card. He came into possession of the card in D
question by chance. Although he is a foreigner, the offences
E E
committed by him have no international dimension. It is also
obvious that he acted alone and that the offences were not
F F
syndicated or organized.
G 17. In TU I Lang, the Court of Appeal stated in paragraph G
10 of the judgment as follows: “Where the facts of the offence
H point to a small unsophisticated operation, involving one or a H
few forged cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially
I I
linking the offender to a larger operation, then a starting
point of three years’ imprisonment or less would be
J J
appropriate.”
K
18. In Tu I Liang, the appellant used a forged credit card K
to purchase a mobile phone with its value not specified in the
L judgment. He also possessed two forged credit cards. The Court L
of Appeal considered that the proper starting point of the
M prison term for these two offences was 3 years’ imprisonment. M
19. While it is correct for Mr. Tang to point out that the
N N
defendant here did not use a forged credit card, I find little
distinction with Tu I Iang. Whether he was using a forged credit
O O
card or a credit card belonging to another person, the defendant
P was still pretending to be someone who had the full and genuine P
authority to use the credit card to make purchases.
Q 20. Furthermore, the defendant had stolen the card, albeit Q
in the course of a theft by finding, and this factor would not
R R
be present if someone was using a forged credit card prepared by
him or given to him by someone else. In considering the
S S
appropriate sentence for this defendant, the overall criminality
T of all offences must be considered. T
21. Besides, the property that the defendant had attempted
U to obtain had a total value of over $78,000, which must be much U
5 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
higher than the mobile phone in Tu I Iang’s case. Having said
that, I am well aware that the value of the property involved is
B B
only a factor, and not the most important factor, in sentencing
C of offences of this kind. C
22. In HKSAR v Kwan Po Keung, CACC79/2011, one of the
D offences committed by the appellant was obtaining property by D
deception. The offence involved the unauthorized use of a credit
E E
card belonging to another person on a single occasion to obtain
property worth around $56,000. The Court of Appeal considered
F F
that a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment appropriate.
G 23. Having considered the facts of this case and the G
authorities, I do not agree with Mr. Tang that the proper
H starting point of the prison term for Charges 1 to 4 should be H
less than 3 years. I am of the view that the proper starting
I I
point should be 3 years imprisonment.
24. As far as mitigating factors are concerned, the
J J
defendant pleads guilty. He is entitled to the usual one-third
K
discount. I have also considered all other factors urged upon me K
by Mr. Tang. The fact that the defendant needed money to live in
L Hong Kong is not a mitigating factor, especially when his need L
was generated by his unlawful stay in Hong Kong. I find there is
M no other factor that reduces the sentences further. I shall M
sentence the defendant for Charges 1 to 4 as follows.
N N
25. In respect of Charge 1, I adopt 3 months’ imprisonment
as the starting point and discounted it by one third to reflect
O O
the defendant’s guilty plea. He is sentenced to 2 months’
P imprisonment for this offence. P
26. For each of Charges 2, 3 and 4, I adopt three years’
Q imprisonment as the starting point for each charge, and giving Q
the defendant the appropriate discount to reflect his guilty
R R
plea, I sentence the defendant to 2 years’ imprisonment for
Charge 2, 2 years’ imprisonment for Charges 3, and 2 years’
S S
imprisonment for Charge 4.
T 27. I order the sentences for Charges 1 to 4 to run T
concurrently.
U 28. I now deal with the sentence for Charge 5. U
6 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V
A A
29. The defendant is a visitor. He stayed in Hong Kong
beyond his permitted period of stay for about 4 months. There is
B B
no sentencing tariff for this offence. Generally speaking, the
C sentence depends on the length of the period of his unlawful C
stay. The case of Liana is not helpful because the appellant
D there had overstayed for 2 ½ years, which was of course a much D
longer period of overstaying than the defendant’s case here.
E E
30. As I understand it, in the magistracy level, the usual
sentence for an overstayer who has overstayed for 4 months with
F F
no prior criminal record will only be given a suspended
G sentence, which is usually a term of one month imprisonment G
suspended for 2 years. However, it will not be correct in
H principle to impose a suspended sentence on the defendant for H
this offence when he was at the same time given an immediate
I I
term of imprisonment for the other offences.
31. I rule therefore that imprisonment is the only
J J
appropriate sentencing option.
K
32. Having considered the length of his overstaying, I fix K
the prison term after plea at 14 days imprisonment.
L 33. The offence in Charge 5 differs totally in nature from L
the other offences in Charges 1 to 4. For this reason, it is
M open to this Court to order the sentence for this charge to run M
consecutively either in whole or in part to the sentences
N N
imposed for the other charges, subject always to the principle
of totality. However, since the defendant will not normally
O O
receive an immediate custodial sentence but for the fact that he
P was sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment for his other P
offences, I order that the sentence imposed in respect of Charge
Q 5 is to run concurrently with the sentences imposed for the Q
other charges.
R R
34. In other words, the total prison term that the
defendant has to serve for these 5 charges is 2 years’
S S
imprisonment.
T T
U W.K. Kwok U
Deputy District Judge
7 DCCC522/2012/Sentence
V V