The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. Although the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles have been punished for the larceny crimes over several times in the past, the frequency of the instant crimes is only one time, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s construction of a theft habit.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant has a habitive wall against larceny.

In light of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles on habituality of larceny, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Article 5-4(5)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment with labor for the 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, prior to the judgment of the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than twenty years.

In light of the legislative purport and form of the above provision and the differences between Article 35 of the Criminal Act, the above provision should be interpreted as creating a new constituent requirement separate from Article 35 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the punishment to be imposed shall be determined again within the scope of aggravated punishment under Article 35 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2019Do18947, May 14, 2020). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s criminal record, which is the ground for aggravated punishment, and did not add aggravated punishment to the Defendant when determining the punishment to be imposed on the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on aggravated punishment of repeated crimes.

On the other hand, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.