The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

1. The decision of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Article 5-4 (5) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special 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 the attempts thereof, again commits such crime, and is punished as a repeated offense, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years but not more than twenty years.

Article 65 of the Criminal Act provides that “In order to be punished by imprisonment with prison labor more than three times,” the sentence first of all, shall not be invalidated (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do19862, Feb. 13, 2018). Article 65 of the Criminal Act provides that “When the term of suspension expires without the invalidation or cancellation of the sentence after the sentence is sentenced, the sentence shall lose its effect.”

The meaning of “the sentence loses its effect” is that the legal effect of the sentence becomes extinct in the future, such as the invalidation of the sentence under the Act on the Lapse of Punishment (see Supreme Court Order 83Mo8, Apr. 2, 1983). Therefore, even if the sentence loses its effect pursuant to the above provision, the previous conviction cannot be deemed to be “a case of imprisonment with prison labor” as prescribed by Article 5-4(5) of the Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do8021, Sept. 9, 2010). According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for larceny on April 26, 2016 and the above judgment became final and conclusive after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, according to the personal expropriation status of the defendant, and the sentence has not been executed since the sentence has become void or revoked, and the above judgment on the defendant’s suspended sentence has not become void due to the lapse of the suspended sentence.

In this regard, in addition to the above suspended sentence, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny provided by Article 5-4 (5) of the Act.