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 grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of a person who violates the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is against the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy and the principle of prohibition against double punishment, and the principle of equity is against the principle of prohibition against double punishment.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

Article 5-4(5)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “instant provision”) amended by Act No. 13717, Jan. 6, 2016, separate from Article 35 of the Criminal Act, where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for committing a crime (including a criminal who committed a crime) under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, and again commits the relevant crime during the period of repeated crime, such person shall be punished as a statutory penalty heavier than 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.

(2) Article 35 of the Criminal Act does not apply to a repeated crime under Article 35 of the Criminal Act in determining the applicable sentencing sentence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2019Do18947, May 14, 2020). Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the statutory provisions of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the legal principles of the defendant and the argument of mental or physical disability are still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. The legal provisions of this case regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles shall not be invalidated after being sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times with prison labor for the former and the latter.