The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The main sentence of Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 13717, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter referred to as "Special Crimes Act") shall be aggravated as follows where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for a crime under Articles 329 through 331, 333 through 336, 340, and 362 of the Criminal Act, or the attempts thereof, again commits such crime, and is punished as a repeated offender:

"A person who commits a crime under any provision of Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act (including an unclaimed crime)" and subparagraph 1 of the same paragraph shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than twenty years.

"........"

On the other hand, Article 8 of the Criminal Code applies to the crimes provided in other Acts and subordinate statutes.

Provided, That this shall not apply where otherwise provided in that Act.

"........"

The main sentence of Article 5-4(5) of the Act should be regarded as a special provision on the aggravation of repeated crimes of other Acts and subordinate statutes.

In the text of the main sentence of Article 5-4 (5) of the Act, where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times for committing any of the crimes under Articles 329 through 331, 333 through 336, 340, and 362 of the Criminal Act, or for the attempted crime, is punished as a repeated offense, the punishment provided for in paragraphs (1) through (4) shall also be imposed.

“The Supreme Court Decision 82Do1865 Decided October 12, 1982 ruled that it is reasonable to set the applicable sentence within the scope of aggravated punishment for repeated crime again in the statutory punishment prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 5-4(5) of the Act before amendment.

The Court ruled.

From the perspective of B, the statutory penalty of each subparagraph of Article 5-4(5) of the Act, which is unique, has already been imposed.