The gist of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment three times with prison labor due to larceny, etc. on August 14, 2018, completed the execution of the sentence, and subsequently, on May 16, 2019, stolen another’s property once, and attempted to steals another’s property on nine occasions from May 18, 2019 to June 17, 2019.

Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) amended and enforced by Act No. 13717 on January 6, 2016 provides that “Where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for the crime under Articles 329 through 331, 333 through 336, and 340 and 362 of the Criminal Act, or for the attempted crime again commits such crime, he/she shall be punished aggravatingly as follows.” Article 5-4(5) of the same Act provides that “If a person again commits a crime (including a criminal attempt) under Articles 329 through 3317 of the Criminal Act, he/she shall be punished for a more than two years, but not more than 20 years, and Article 35 of the Criminal Act provides that “The provision of this case shall be punished for more than three years, separate from the provision of the Criminal Act, the provision of this case’s penal punishment for the crime under Article 5 of the Criminal Act.”

Nevertheless, the lower court, on the grounds that the instant legal provision constitutes a special provision on aggravation of repeated crimes, did not focus on the part of the violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act Article 35 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the instant legal provision, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Prosecutor’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. Scope of reversal

For the foregoing reasons, the part of the lower judgment on the violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act among the lower judgment should be reversed. However, the lower court rendered a single sentence by deeming that the facts charged and the remaining facts charged constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower court’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)