All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) on the ground that “In cases where a person was sentenced twice or more due to the crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, the attempted crime, or the crime under Article 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act” or the attempted crime under Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment Act”), on the ground that the sentence was imposed on a habitual offender prior to the instant crime only once, on the ground that it means a case where he was sentenced twice or more for the crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act or the crime under Article 329 through 331 of the said Act

However, even if the above part of Article 5-4 (6) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act is practically interpreted and the previous crime is sentenced to a punishment for simple larceny, if the crime is caused by the expression of habituality, the above provision shall be deemed to apply.

Therefore, although the charge of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) is found guilty, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the charge is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant (unfair sentencing) recognized and reflected the Defendant’s crime, and that the Defendant led to the confession of all crimes at the early stage of the investigation and actively cooperated in the investigation, the sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor also presented the same argument as the grounds for appeal in this case, and the court below rejected the prosecutor's argument in detail in the "non-crime portion" of the judgment. The judgment of the court below is justified and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes provides that "The provisions of Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes are habitually applicable."