All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendants’ crime of this case is the habitual crime committed by the Defendants, and the Defendants became final and conclusive upon a judgment of fraud in relation to other crimes resulting from such habition. As such, res judicata effect of the above final and conclusive judgment extends to the instant prosecution.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (four months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where a judgment of conviction has become final and conclusive on a part of several facts of a habitual crime which is in a comprehensive one-off relationship as to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, if a new prosecution has been instituted on the remaining crimes committed before the judgment of the court of facts was rendered, the new prosecution should be rendered by judgment on the same case as the case in which the final and conclusive judgment was rendered. However, in order to apply such a legal principle, it is necessary that the relevant defendant was prosecuted for a habitual crime, and if he was committed against a crime which constitutes a basic element of a crime which is not a habitual crime, he shall not be deemed to be a comprehensive crime as a habitual crime, even if all of them were judged to constitute a final and conclusive judgment on a part of a habitual crime, considering that the final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment was a final and conclusive judgment on a part of a habitual crime, and thus, the final and conclusive judgment shall not be deemed to legally affect the remainder of the crime before the judgment was rendered (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Do306, Sept. 16, 2004).