The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes

A. In a case where a thief commits an intrusion upon his/her residence as a means of larceny does not absorb the crime of larceny and constitutes a crime of intrusion upon his/her residence separately from larceny, in principle, the crime of intrusion upon his/her residence should not be incorporated into the crime of larceny and substantial concurrent relationship between larceny and larceny.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 84Do1573 delivered on December 26, 1984). In addition, Article 332 of the Criminal Act provides that punishment shall be aggravated by half of each punishment stipulated for illegal use crimes, such as simple larceny, night intrusion larceny, special larceny, and automobiles. The above provision separate treatment of habitual larceny and habitual larceny, which are not the elements of intrusion upon residence, and of habitual larceny and habitual larceny, which are the elements of intrusion upon residence, and of special larceny, which are the elements of habitual larceny and habitual larceny, which are not the elements of intrusion upon residence, and which are the elements of habitual larceny and habitual larceny or habitual larceny, which are the elements of intrusion upon residence, and is subject to aggravated statutory punishment which is more severe.

Therefore, in a case where a person who habitually commits a simple larceny has violated his/her residence as a means of habitually larceny, the evaluation of illegality of the act of housing intrusion during the daytime cannot be deemed to be included in the constituent evaluation of Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, if a criminal who habitually commits larceny stipulated in Article 332 of the Criminal Code intrudes upon his/her residence as a means of committing the crime during the day, his/her act of intrusion upon his/her residence constitutes a crime of intrusion upon his/her residence separate from habitual larceny.

In addition, a criminal who habitually commits larceny stipulated in Article 332 of the Criminal Code has been invaded on his residence in the daytime for the purpose of larceny in addition to the crime, but has not come to the theft and has come to be invaded upon his residence.