The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Several offenses committed by habitual offenders with the summary of the grounds for appeal constitute several offenses, and cannot be deemed a single comprehensive offense.

Even if multiple crimes committed by habitual offenders constitute a single comprehensive crime, res judicata of the judgment which became final and conclusive as a habitual offender cannot be deemed to affect the case in which a simple crime was instituted.

2. Determination

A. A. The term “Habitual offender” refers to the type of crime subject to an aggravated punishment in a case where a person committing an act that constitutes a basic constituent element is deemed to have the nature of the perpetrator, namely, repeated nature of the crime.

In addition, if a person who habitually commits multiple crimes repeatedly, it is not to regard each crime as a separate crime and be punished as a single crime that covers all of the crimes, but to be punished as a single crime that is a habitual offender, in line with the nature of the crime or the legislative intent of the provisions on the aggravated punishment.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do3206 Decided September 16, 2004, etc.). B.

Meanwhile, the effect of a public prosecution in habitual crimes extends to the whole criminal facts identical to the criminal facts charged, and the trial scope that affects the validity of a public prosecution should be based on the time of sentencing, which is the final point of time at which it is possible to examine the facts. As such, once a public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution for habitual fraud and then has the effect of the public prosecution for habitual fraud, a part of the fraudulent act committed by a public prosecutor for a separate habitual fraud cannot be permitted as it constitutes a double prosecution for the same case in which the public prosecution was instituted, even though the facts charged are limited to the fraud committed after the crime committed by habitual fraud first.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do3929 delivered on November 26, 1999, etc.). C.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was on August 2014.