The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The annexed crimes No. 1 to No. 4 of the judgment of the defendant are each crimes in the annexed crimes table 1 to No. 4.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court on November 27, 2014 and 2 years of suspended sentence on December 5, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 5, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to acquittal in relation to each of the larceny crimes listed in the attached Table 1 or 4, which was committed before the above final and conclusive judgment among each of the crimes in the instant case. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the instant case’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Northern District Court on November 27, 2014 and 2 years of suspended execution on December 5, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

However, in a case where a judgment of conviction has become final for a part of multiple criminal facts which are in the relationship of a comprehensive crime as a habitual offender, if a new prosecution has been instituted for the remaining crimes committed prior to the judgment of facts in the final judgment, such new prosecution is to be instituted for the same case as the case in which the final judgment was rendered (Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, in order to apply such a legal principle, it is necessary that the relevant criminal defendant is prosecuted for a habitual offender and has been placed in the final judgment, and in a case where he is committed for a crime which is not a habitual offender, it shall not be deemed that the res judicata effect extends to the crime prior to the judgment of facts in the final judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do3206, Sept. 16, 2004). Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is rejected.

B. Ex officio determination, however, Attached to each of the crimes in the holding of the court below.