The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

The Defendant, at the Seoul Northern District Court on October 15, 2010, sentenced one year and six months to imprisonment for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) (Seoul Northern District Court 2010 Gohap 260). As to this, the Prosecutor appealed from Seoul High Court 2010No3059. On December 23, 2010, the court below reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 25(2) of the Criminal Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant appealed the judgment of the court below on the grounds that “Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 342 of the Criminal Act, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act are applied to the judgment subject to a retrial, and the Defendant was also dismissed by 301 year or less.”

After that, the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling 2013Hun-Ba3 on November 26, 2015, where a person was sentenced twice or more to a crime referred to in Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010) and again commits a crime referred to in Article 329 of the Criminal Act in Article 5-4 (1) of the same Act within three years after the completion or exemption of the execution of the sentence, the penalty against the crime shall be aggravated by up to twice the short term of the punishment prescribed for the crime.

"" declared that the part is in violation of the Constitution.

On October 25, 2016, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on a judgment subject to a new trial. On November 10, 2016, this Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the grounds that there exist grounds for a new trial under Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act with respect to a judgment subject to a new trial, which had retroactively ceased to be effective due to a decision of unconstitutionality.

After that, a legitimate appeal shall be made within the period of appeal.