1. Article 5-4(5)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applies to cases where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, or an attempt thereof, again commits a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act (including unclaimed crimes) and is punished as a repeated offense.

The lower court applied this provision on the ground that the Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times with prison labor due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief), special larceny, larceny, larceny, etc., again committed larceny of the night structure within three years after the execution of the sentence is completed.

The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, as alleged in the grounds

2. The allegation that the lower court’s judgment did not fully reflect the sentencing conditions favorable to the Defendant and violated the essential contents of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

According to Article 383, Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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