The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) argues to the effect that the Defendant is unreasonable to apply the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, not the Criminal Act, to the instant crime. However, Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the applicable provisions to the instant crime, is likely to disregard the warning function of the punishment and cause social criticism by disregarding the warning function of the punishment, resulting in a high possibility of social criticism. Considering the trend in which repeated crimes are increasing, the above provision was enacted based on criminal policy considerations of crime prevention and social defense, etc., and it does not violate the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 2011Hun-Ba15, 90 (combined) decided May 31, 2012).

In full view of the records of the Defendant’s previous crime, the method of committing the crime at the time, damaged articles, and the time when the instant crime was committed after the completion of the sentence, it is difficult to view that the prosecutor’s indictment against the Defendant by applying the above provision of the Criminal Act, rather than the Criminal Act, was abused.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime seven times in the past, and in particular, on August 16, 2018, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months for habitual larceny, etc. and served for a period of repeated crime, which was only one month after the execution of the sentence was completed on January 6, 2019, and the Defendant committed the instant crime even during the period of repeated crime, and the sentence of the lower court is statutory penalty.