The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant before determining ex officio.

Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for the crime under Articles 329 through 331, 333 through 336, and 340 and 362 of the Criminal Act, or the attempts thereof, commits again such crime, and is punished as a repeated crime, the punishment shall be aggravated as follows." Article 5-4 (5) 1 of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as "the provisions of the Act of this case") provides that "where the person commits the crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act (including the attempted crime), he/she shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two

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). Nevertheless, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s previous conviction, which served as the cause of aggravation of repeated crime, and, even if so, recognized the Defendant’s previous conviction, sentenced to the punishment against the Defendant.