The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is that it is unlawful to punish a criminal defendant in violation of Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the ground that he/she was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than three times due to larceny, including habitual larceny, although he/she does not include a criminal conviction subject to punishment for habitual larceny under Article 5-4 (1) of the same Act.

However, Article 5-4 (1) of the above Act is deemed to have a habit of larceny and habitually punish “a person who commits a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, or attempts to commit such crime,” and it is reasonable to interpret that Article 5-4 (5) of the above Act includes that “a person who is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act or an attempted crime under Article 329 through 331 of the same Act” includes a person who is punished as a

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do4666, Jun. 12, 2014). Accordingly, the lower court’s determination that recognized each act of the Defendant as a crime of violating Article 5-4(5) of the aforementioned Act is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the said provision, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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