DCCC979/2024

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 黃浩賢 - 法院：區域法院 - 法官：張潔宜 - 判決日期：2025年8月1日 ### 案情摘要 被告黃浩賢在事主梁女士及其家人外出旅遊期間，獲准進入其單位暫住。被告在單位內偷走兩條鎖匙及一張屬於梁女士丈夫宋先生的信用卡。隨後，被告於2024年4月4日使用該信用卡在麥當勞、先達廣場、兆萬中心及7-11進行四次消費，購買兩部iPhone及少量食物，總金額約18,657.50港元，並將iPhone轉售獲利5,000港元。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案涉及兩項盜竊罪（Theft）的量刑問題。辯方主張被告與事主有親密關係，且犯罪手法簡單、單獨行動且金額不高，應參考偽造信用卡案件的量刑指引，建議量刑起點低於3年監禁，並請求兩項控罪同期執行。 ### 判決理由 法官在量刑時考慮到被告有15項刑事定罪紀錄（其中13項涉及不誠實，8項為盜竊），認定其為慣犯，屬加重刑罰因素。針對第一項控罪（偷竊鎖匙及信用卡），法官設定量刑起點為12個月，因慣犯上調至15個月，認罪後下調至10個月。針對第二項控罪（使用信用卡購物），法官參考上訴庭量刑原則，設定起點為30個月，因慣犯上調至33個月，認罪後下調至22個月。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 R v Chan Sui To and Another [1996] 2 HKCLR 128 及 HKSAR v Tu I Lang (CACC 464/2006) 關於使用偽造信用卡案件的量刑因素（如規模、複雜度、角色等），以及 HKSAR v Lam See Chung, Stephen [2013] 5 HKLRD 242 關於小型簡單犯罪手法的量刑起點。 ### 裁決與命令 被告被裁定兩項盜竊罪成。第一項控罪判處監禁10個月，第二項控罪判處監禁22個月。法官決定兩項刑期分期執行，其中第一項控罪的2個月與第二項控罪同期執行，總刑期為監禁24個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了被告的刑事紀錄（criminal record）在量刑中扮演的重要角色，尤其是慣犯（habitual offender）會導致量刑起點被上調。此外，法官區分了「偷竊信用卡」與「使用信用卡購物」兩種不同行為的罪責，決定分期執行而非全部同期執行。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: HKSAR v Wong Ho Yin - Court: District Court - Judge: Cheung Kit Yee - Date of Judgment: 1 August 2025 ### Factual Background The defendant was permitted to stay at the victim's flat while she and her family were traveling. During this time, he stole two keys and a UnionPay credit card belonging to the victim's husband. On 4 April 2024, the defendant used the stolen card for four transactions totaling HK$18,657.50, including the purchase of two iPhones, which he later resold for HK$5,000. ### Key Legal Issues The primary issue was the determination of the appropriate sentence for two counts of theft. The defense argued for a lenient starting point (below 3 years) based on the simple nature of the crime, the defendant's relationship with the victim, and requested that the sentences run concurrently. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge identified the defendant as a habitual offender due to 15 prior convictions (13 involving dishonesty). For the first count (stealing keys/card), the starting point was 12 months, increased to 15 for recidivism, and reduced to 10 for the guilty plea. For the second count (using the card), the starting point was 30 months, increased to 33 for recidivism, and reduced to 22 for the guilty plea. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The court referred to R v Chan Sui To and Another [1996] 2 HKCLR 128 and HKSAR v Tu I Lang (CACC 464/2006) regarding sentencing factors for credit card fraud, and HKSAR v Lam See Chung, Stephen [2013] 5 HKLRD 242 regarding starting points for simple, small-scale offenses. ### Decision & Orders The defendant was sentenced to 10 months for the first count and 22 months for the second count. The judge ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, with only 2 months of the first sentence running concurrently with the second, resulting in a total sentence of 24 months' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways The judgment underscores that a significant history of dishonesty convictions serves as a strong aggravating factor that elevates the sentencing starting point. It also distinguishes between the act of stealing a card and the subsequent unauthorized use of that card as distinct criminal acts requiring separate sentencing considerations. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.