The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine by deeming that the crime of intrusion upon residence is established separately even though the lower court applied the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to the Defendant’s crime, thereby double punishing the concurrent crime.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes requires that criminal experience and repeated crime be aggravated. On the other hand, Article 5-4(1) of the same Act requires habitualness, and the requirements are different.

In addition, it is not a requirement to establish larceny in general except for night residence larceny under Article 330 of the Criminal Code and special larceny under Article 331(1). In the event a larceny offender intrudes upon his/her residence as a means of crime, the act of intrusion upon his/her residence is not absorption into larceny, and it is a principle that it does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon his/her residence, and constitutes a crime of intrusion upon his/her residence separately from larceny.

Therefore, in a case where a crime of violation of Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established by intrusion upon a residence in the daytime, the crime of intrusion upon a residence under Article 319 of the Criminal Act is separately established (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7820, Nov. 27, 2008). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health stand in light of the foregoing, the instant case constitutes a crime of intrusion upon a residence under Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by the Defendant by intrusion upon a residence in the daytime, and thus, the crime of intrusion upon a residence is separately established.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that aggravated concurrent crimes did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, and the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. The fact that the Defendant recognized all of the crimes to be found unfair in sentencing, and the fact that the Defendant cooperates in the investigation, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

However, this shall not apply.