On September 30, 2005, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. on March 27, 2008, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months in the same court on March 27, 2008, and sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime in the same court on January 7, 2010, and three years in the same court on February 13, 2013, and completed the execution of the sentence on December 20, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendant got back to the alley, and intruded into the alleys of abandoned houses to steals money and valuables, and boarded the alley path (vehicle registration number omitted) with the Defendant getting on and off (vehicle registration number omitted).

At around 10:42 on May 12, 2016, the Defendant discovered that the main gate was opened in the house of the 1st floor of Gwangju Mine-gu (location omitted), and stolen the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s net money for male and female use (5 money), one half of the net money for female use (5 money), and one precious metal 18K eropos for female women’s women’s use (0.5 money) with approximately KRW 1,875,000 in total over 12 times in total, as shown in the attached list of crimes, including one precious metal, as shown in the attached list of crimes, the Defendant habitually stolen the total amount of KRW 8,404,00 in total.

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 1, 3, 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 12

1. Investigation report (the Seoul Bank, the new interest, the release on bail, the confirmation of the account book for the purchase of shots, etc.) and photographs attached thereto;

1. Records of previous convictions: Criminal records, current status of personal confinement, judgment, investigation report (Attachment of the same kind of imprisonment and three copies of the judgment; and

1. Habituality of the judgment: The records of each crime, the number of crimes, the frequency of crimes, and the defendant's last release from prison, and the fact that he/she again commits the crime of this case at least six months, etc., shall be deemed as dampness;

Articles 5-4(6), 329, and 342 of the Criminal Act (including attempted habitual larceny and habitual larceny)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act [Attachment to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which ends on December 20, 2015]

2. Determination of sentence 1);

The fact that the defendant agreed to some of the victims is favorable to the defendant.

Although the Defendant had already been sentenced several times due to the crime of habitual larceny of the same kind, he/she again committed the crime of this case on December 20, 2015 after having completed the execution of imprisonment on December 20, 2015 and having been released from prison, and only six months thereafter, again committed the crime of this case. The victims other than the agreed victims want to be punished by the Defendant, etc. are disadvantageous to the victim.

In addition, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in comprehensive consideration of various sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc. of the defendant.

On May 12, 2016, around 10:42, the Defendant discovered that gate was in the first floor of the housing unit in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju, and intruded into the residence managed by the victims 12 times in total, such as the list of crimes in the attached list.

2. Determination

In light of the above legal principles, where a criminal who habitually stolen under Article 5-4(1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 13717, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same) intrudes upon his/her residence as a means of such crime, the act of intrusion upon his/her residence constitutes only one crime such as habitual larceny, and does not constitute a separate crime of intrusion upon his/her residence. The same legal principle as prescribed in Article 16(1)6 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applies to the crime of habitual larceny, etc., as long as it appears that the criminal who committed the crime such as habitual larceny, etc. was invaded for the purpose of habitual larceny, and it does not constitute a crime of habitual larceny, etc., separate from the crime of habitual larceny, etc. (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Do1573, Dec. 26, 198, etc.).

Therefore, since each of the defendants' residential intrusion acts is composed of a means of larceny, and the habitual nature of larceny has been revealed, it is not a crime of habitual larceny, and it is not a separate crime of intrusion upon residence.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it does not constitute a crime. However, inasmuch as it is found guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) in the judgment

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Judge)

1) As the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes was amended by Act No. 13717 on January 6, 2016, the elements of Article 5-4(6) are changed. As such, the sentencing criteria based on Article 5-4(6) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 13717, Jan. 6, 2016) are not applicable.