The Defendant’s indivating ground of appeal is that it is unlawful to punish the Defendant in violation of Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the ground that the former who was sentenced to imprisonment under Article 5-4(5) does not include the former who was sentenced to punishment for habitual larceny under Article 5-4(1) of the same Act, but is sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times due to larceny, including habitual larceny.

However, Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "a person who habitually commits a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, or attempts thereof," and Article 5-4 (5) of the same Act provides that "a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act or attempts thereof" shall be construed as including a person who has been punished for a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act or a crime under Article 5-4 (1) of the same Act, which is more aggravated than the punishment for such crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court that recognized each act of the defendant as a violation of Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is just, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the relevant legal principles as alleged in the non-

Therefore, the summary appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.