The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which was amended and enforced by Act No. 7654 of Aug. 4, 2005, appears to be in order to strengthen statutory punishment for habitual larceny crimes as the legislative purport thereof was repealed by the Act repealed by the Social Protection Act, enacted by Act No. 7656 of Aug. 4, 2005, and the system of the provisions provides for certain elements of crime, and the applicable requirements or effects are different from Article 35 of the Criminal Act. In light of the above provisions of Article 5-4 (1) or (2) of the Act, if the defendant was sentenced two or more times to imprisonment and the execution thereof was terminated or exempted, and again, the court below erred by newly adding the statutory punishment to the punishment of the defendant by up to two times the short-term punishment prescribed by the above provision of Article 5-4 (1) or (2) within the scope of punishment prescribed by Article 360 of the Criminal Act.

B. As to the assertion of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant again committed each of the instant theft crimes even though he/she had been sentenced four times to a punishment due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and even though he/she had several times, he/she again committed the instant theft crimes, and even three days after the execution of the final sentence was completed.