The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. On April 22, 2014, the Jeonju District Court rendered a sentence of a suspended sentence of two years to the Defendant on the one-year imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 30, 2014.

(Seoul District Court Branch Branch 2014Nodan30). (b)

The Constitutional Court on February 26, 2015

A. Of Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010; Act No. 13717, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same), which applies to the instant case, the part regarding Article 329 of the Criminal Act was ruled unconstitutional (the Constitutional Court Decision 2014HunGa16), and the Defendant’s above.

A. On May 26, 2015, the Jeonju District Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the following grounds: (a) on August 11, 2015, the Defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny; and (b) on August 11, 2015, the judgment became final and conclusive on August 19, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant new judgment”) C.

From July 25, 2014 to August 25, 2014, the Defendant was indicted as a charge of theft of clothes, wallets, etc. in a state of mental disorder caused by a physiological wall four times, and the lower court convicted the Defendant on October 7, 2015, which is the date the new judgment of this case became final and conclusive.

The Defendant appealed against the lower judgment, and the facts charged prior to the remanding of the case are the crimes prior to the pronouncement of the instant new judgment. The facts charged in the instant new judgment and the facts charged in the instant case are both habitual larceny and constitutes a single comprehensive offense. Thus, the facts charged in the instant case also have res judicata effect on the facts charged by applying Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

E. Prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the trial court prior to remand, and the Supreme Court has made an appeal.