The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of the defendant's assertion

A. Since the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged in this case, is unconstitutional, the facts charged in this case shall not be a crime.

B. The grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) that the court below sentenced to the defendant are too unreasonable (three years of imprisonment).

2. Determination

A. On November 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality on the part of Article 5-4 (6) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010; Act No. 13717, Jan. 6, 2016); where a person again commits a crime under Article 329 of the Criminal Act under paragraph (1) within three years after the execution of the sentence is completed or exempted, with respect to the part concerning the crime under paragraph (1).

(The Constitutional Court Decision 2013Hun-Ba343 Decided November 26, 2015). However, Article 5-4(6) of the current Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the applicable provisions of the facts charged in this case, was amended after the above unconstitutional decision, and there is no possibility that the Constitutional Court made a decision of unconstitutionality with respect thereto.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles on different premise is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing [unjustifiable circumstances] The Defendant did not release the Defendant from the instant crime for three months, despite the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced several times of punishment due to the habitual larceny crimes.

The defendant was punished for 16 days in prison by committing a violation of discipline that assaults two inmates of the same ward in the Seoul detention center during the unconvicted confinement in the trial.

[Ligue circumstances] The defendant shows the attitude of reflecting the mistake by recognizing the facts itself of the crime of this case.