The judgment below

Among them, the guilty part against the defendant and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief).

1. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication of this court;

A. On August 29, 2018, the judgment of the court below rendered a verdict of not guilty on ① the charge of special larceny committed by the defendant on March 4, 2019, each violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving), ② the charge of larceny committed on August 29, 2018, on the ground that the defendant does not constitute “a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment on the grounds of a crime provided in Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act or an attempt thereof” (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act), the judgment of the court below acquitted him/her on the grounds that he/she did not constitute “a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment on the grounds of a crime provided in Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act,” and ③ the charge of larceny included in such special larceny, and the judgment of not guilty on the charge

B. As to the judgment of the lower court prior to remand, the Defendant appealed the lower court’s judgment on the conviction on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing, on the grounds of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the acquittal portion of the reason for violation of the Special Family Act, and on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the prosecutor appealed from the acquittal portion of special larceny, and on the conviction portion, on the grounds of unfair sentencing. On November 6, 2019, the judgment prior to remand dismissed all the

C. The prosecutor of the judgment of remanded the case before remanding the case on the grounds of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the acquittal part of the judgment of the party which was not guilty on the grounds of violation of the Special Family Law (thief)

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal regarding the charge of special larceny. ② On the premise that the defendant does not constitute “a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment with labor for a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act or an attempt to commit such a crime,” the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in the judgment of the party before remanding the case not guilty of this part of the charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. This part of the charges and the charges charged as guilty are the crimes.