As to the crime of No. 1 in the judgment of the defendant, the crime of No. 2 in the judgment of the court.

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny at the Incheon District Court on September 11, 2015, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time (hereinafter “the final and conclusive judgment of this case”), and the charge of entering a residential chips under Article 1 of the facts charged of this case was already included in the criminal facts of the final and conclusive judgment, and thus, the Defendant should be sentenced to a acquittal judgment on this part of the facts charged.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the crime of No. 1 as indicated in the lower judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for three months, and the crime of No. 2 as indicated in the lower judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and three months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, it is evident that the facts constituting the crime No. 1 and the facts constituting the final judgment of this case are separate crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that is based on this premise is without merit.

B. Each of the crimes of this case with regard to determining the illegality of sentencing is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant, such as the fact that each of the crimes of this case committed a theft against an unspecified number of victims or after intrusion, and that the Defendant has been punished several times for the same kind of crime, and in particular, committed some of the crimes during the period of repeated offense.

However, it is favorable for the defendant to take into account the following facts: (a) the defendant's mistake is recognized by the court below; (b) the defendant compensates for the damage to three victims at the court below; and (c) the defendant agrees with the victims by agreement; and (d) the crime of intrusion into the house of this case requires consideration of equity with the case of concurrent crimes with the crime of this case final judgment and the crime of intrusion into the house of this case after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In full view of the above circumstances and the overall sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which were revealed in the records and arguments of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.