The summary appeal is dismissed.

The summary grounds of appeal are examined.

The Defendant’s indivating ground of appeal is that it is unlawful to punish the Defendant in violation of Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the ground that the former who was sentenced to imprisonment under Article 5-4(5) does not include the former who was sentenced to punishment for habitual larceny under Article 5-4(1) of the same Act, but is sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times due to larceny, including habitual larceny.

However, Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "a person who habitually commits a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, or attempts thereof," and Article 5-4 (5) of the same Act provides that "a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act or attempts thereof" shall be construed as including a person who has been punished for a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act or a crime under Article 5-4 (1) of the same Act, which is more aggravated than the punishment for such crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court that recognized each act of the defendant as a violation of Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is just, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the relevant legal principles as alleged in the non-

Therefore, the summary appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.