All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. Prosecutor 1) In the event that a criminal who committed a crime of habitual larceny, etc. as prescribed in Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes intrudes upon a house as a means of the crime, the act of intrusion upon a house is not absorptioned into the crime of habitual larceny, and constitutes a separate crime of intrusion upon a house, but the lower court determined that the said act of intrusion upon a house does not constitute a separate crime of intrusion upon a house.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a criminal who committed a crime of habitual larceny, etc. as prescribed in Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes committed a crime of habitual larceny, etc., upon the prosecutor’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the act of intrusion upon residence is incorporated into a crime of habitual larceny, etc., and only one crime of habitual larceny, etc., as prescribed in the said Article is established, and does not constitute a separate crime of intrusion upon residence (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do404, Jul. 11, 2017). The prosecutor’s allegation above is without merit.

B. The Defendant again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime even though he/she had a previous record of multiple times to determine the illegality of sentencing, and considering the fact that the instant crime was committed by the Defendant who habitually stolen another person’s property at least twice, and that the Defendant was habitually sentenced to a punishment on more than two occasions, and the Defendant again stolen another person’s property within three years after the execution of the punishment was completed and the nature of such crime is not good, strict punishment against the Defendant is required.

However, the defendant's mistake is divided, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. are difficult to see.