The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where a person who committed a crime of habitual larceny, etc. as prescribed in Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment Act”) intrudes on the residence as a means of the crime, the act of intrusion upon the residence does not constitute a separate crime of intrusion upon the residence, by absorbing the crime of habitual larceny, etc. as prescribed in the said Article, and constituting separate crimes of habitual larceny, etc. as prescribed in the said Article. In addition, in a case where the person who committed the crime of habitual larceny, etc. committed intrusion upon the residence for the purpose of habitual larceny, in addition to the crime, but did not come to the crime of habitual larceny, and even in a case where it appears to have come to have come to fall under the actual occurrence of habitual larceny, the act of intrusion upon the residence does not constitute only one crime of habitual larceny, etc. as prescribed in the said Article, and constitutes a crime of habitual larceny,

However, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the Defendant on the ground of the crime of intrusion on residence, and convicted the Defendant of all the charges, on the following grounds: (a) on the facts charged that the Defendant violated Article 5-4(6) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, and thus, did not habitually steals another person’s property, or did not steal another person’s property due to his/her lack of property

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of Article 5-4(6) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Meanwhile, the lower court imposed a single sentence on the ground that the facts charged for intrusion upon residence and the remaining facts charged are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the remainder of the facts charged should also be reversed as well as the facts charged.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.