The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where a judgment of conviction has become final for a part of multiple criminal facts which are in a comprehensive crime as a habitual offender, if a new public prosecution was instituted for the remaining crimes committed before a judgment of facts was rendered in the final judgment, that new public prosecution is instituted for the same case as the case in which the final judgment was rendered, and thus, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered.

(1) Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That Article 326 subparag. 1 of the same Act applies, in a case where the defendant was prosecuted for a habitual crime, and the defendant was punished for a basic crime other than a habitual crime, even if all of them are determined to constitute an all comprehensive crime as a habitual crime only after considering the facts established in the judgment prior to the new poor criminal facts and the judgment, etc., which became guilty, the final judgment prior to the latest final judgment shall not be deemed to affect the remaining crimes prior to the judgment of the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2001Do3206, Sept. 16, 2004). Accordingly, in a case where the defendant is punished for a basic crime other than a habitual crime, not a habitual crime, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to have become final and conclusive after the final judgment of the Seoul Central District Court of 201Mo3154, supra, on the ground that the final judgment of the first instance judgment becomes final and conclusive.