1. Where a person who has been convicted of habitual offenders committed a crime by the same damp wall thereafter, and a new trial has commenced for the final judgment of conviction (hereinafter referred to as “prior crime”), and even if a subsequent offense by the same damp wall was committed prior to the pronouncement of a new judgment on the judgment subject to new trial, res judicata effect of the new judgment does not extend to the subsequent offense.

In addition, even where a judgment on a subsequent offense was first rendered and became final and conclusive prior to the pronouncement of a new judgment on a prior offense, res judicata of the judgment on the subsequent offense does not extend to the prior offense (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Do20698, Jun. 20, 2019; Supreme Court Decision 2016Do756, Jul. 25, 2019). 2.

The record reveals the following facts.

1) The Defendant habitually steals another’s property on three occasions from June 20, 2014 to July 12, 2014 (hereinafter “instant preceding crime”)

) On November 27, 2014, the Seoul Northern District Court revised the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) at the Seoul Northern District Court on November 27, 2014

(ii)a judgment sentenced to one and half years of imprisonment for a crime of larceny and two years of suspended execution (hereinafter referred to as “instant judgment subject to a retrial”).

(2) On October 30, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and the Defendant’s appeal and final appeal were all dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 7, 2016. < Amended by Act No. 1328, Oct. 30, 2015; Act No. 13284, Oct. 30, 2015; Act No. 13358, Apr. 7, 2016>

3. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court has applied the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, which was a legal provision applied to the instant judgment subject to review.