The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below sentenced to the defendant (three years of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

The Defendant asserted to the effect that Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the legal provision applicable to the crime of this case, was unconstitutional, and thus, the judgment of the court below is unlawful.

In the Constitutional Court Decision 2013Hun-Ba343 Decided November 26, 2015, where a person was sentenced twice or more to a crime referred to in Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010) and again commits a crime referred to in Article 329 of the Criminal Act in Article 5-4 (1) of the same Act within three years after the completion or exemption of the execution of the sentence, the Constitutional Court shall aggravated punish him/her up to twice the short-term punishment prescribed for such crime.

“The portion” was sentenced to a decision that the Constitution is unconstitutional, and accordingly, the said provision is habitually punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years but not more than 25 years, where a person was sentenced twice or more to a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, or an attempted crime under Article 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, or a crime under Article 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, or a crime under paragraph (2) is habitually committed within three years after the execution of the sentence is completed or exempted.

“Revision” was amended to “.

Since the crime of this case was committed after the enforcement of the above revised provision, the application of the law of the court below is legitimate, and it is not subject to judgment because there is no reason to affect the judgment.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness are applied, in our criminal litigation law.