The judgment below

Among the judgments of the court below, parts of the crimes Nos. 1 and 3 of the judgment of the court below are reversed.

The defendant is each of the crimes of Nos. 1 and 3 of the judgment of the court below.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (each of the crimes listed in the Judgment No. 1 and No. 3: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and each of the crimes listed in the Decision No. 2: Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., including the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times on October 22, 2014 for the same crime that the Defendant used stolen credit cards, and even if having been punished on several occasions, the Defendant committed the instant crime again despite having been punished on the same kind of crime including punishment on October 22, 2014, and the damage from the crime has not been completely recovered, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing prescribed in the judgment of the court below as to each of the crimes in Article 2 of the judgment of the court below is too uneasible.

3. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal as to each of the crimes (three years of imprisonment) Nos. 1 and 3 of the judgment of the court below (the part concerning each of the crimes No. 1 and 3 of the judgment of the court below).

The purpose of Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is to punish a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times for the crime under Articles 329 through 331, 333 through 336, 340, and 362 of the Criminal Act or the attempts thereof, and is punished as a repeated crime for committing such crime again, even in cases where habituality is not recognized, the punishment shall be imposed in accordance with the statutory punishment prescribed in Articles 1 through 4 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Therefore, it is reasonable to determine the applicable punishment within the scope of the aggravated punishment for a repeated crime again (Supreme Court Decision 82Do1865 delivered on October 12, 1982). The lower court did not apply Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as to each crime under Articles 1 and 3 of the same Act, but did not apply the aggravated punishment under Article 5-4 (5).

Ultimately, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.