The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) amended and enforced by Act No. 13717, Jan. 6, 2016, provides that “If a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for the crime under Articles 329 through 331, 333 through 336, 340, and 362 of the Criminal Act, or the attempt thereof, once again commits such crime, and is punished as a repeated offender, the person shall be punished aggravatingly as follows.” Article 5-4(5) of the same Act provides that “If a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for the crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “the provisions of this case”) commits a crime under Article 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment

The legal provisions of this case aim at strengthening the statutory punishment on the thief who committed the crime repeatedly, and the system of the article provides certain elements of a crime, and the application requirements and effects are also provided differently from Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

In light of the legislative intent and form of the legal provision of this case and differences from Article 35 of the Criminal Act, the provision of this case should be interpreted as creating a new constituent element of punishment, which is heavier than the Criminal Act, in cases where a person who has been sentenced more than three times to imprisonment for committing a crime (including an attempted crime) under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act committed more than three times, separate from Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the punishment for a repeated crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act should be determined within the scope of the heavier penalty for a repeated crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2019Do18947, May 14, 2020). The lower court also recognized the Defendant’s previous conviction, which served as a ground for aggravation of repeated crimes.