The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years and by a fine of 300,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The sentence of the court below against the defendant in the summary of the grounds for appeal (a prison term of three years, a fine of three hundred thousand won, and confiscation) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the prosecutor's ex officio determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing, where a person who habitually stolen under Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes intrudes upon his/her residence as a means of the crime, the act of intrusion upon his/her residence does not constitute a crime of habitual larceny, and only one of the crimes of habitual larceny as prescribed in the above Article of the above Act is established, and separate crimes of intrusion upon his/her residence are committed. In addition, the crime of habitual larceny, other than the crime, was invaded upon by his/her residence for the purpose of habitual larceny, and even in cases where he/she intrudes upon his/her residence without the crime of habitual larceny, constitutes only one crime of habitual larceny as prescribed in the above Act, and does not constitute the crime of habitual larceny, separate from the crime of habitual larceny (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Do1573, Dec. 26, 198).

Nevertheless, the lower court deemed that the Defendant’s act of larceny and intrusion upon residence are separate crimes among the charges charged against the Defendant, and deemed that they are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and deemed that they are concurrent crimes.