The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in Violation of the Constitution (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “Specialized Family Act”) (hereinafter “Specialized Family Act”) is subject to punishment for concurrent crimes with other crimes, and is subject to punishment for habitual larceny only under the Special Aggravated Punishment Act (hereinafter “Habitual larceny”) and the period of invalidation of the punishment becomes relatively higher than when the punishment is imposed separately for habitual larceny. As a result, Article 5-4(6) of the Special Crimes Act (hereinafter “Specialized Family Act”) is applicable because the punishment is not invalidated.

In such a case, the provision of this case is against the principle of excessive prohibition and the principle of prohibition against double Jeopardy so far as it is interpreted that the provision of this case also applies to such a case, and thus is in violation of the Constitution.

B. When committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness such as depression at the time of committing the instant crime, and thus, the lower court, which did not recognize mental illness, erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to mental and physical disability.

C. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s mistake in an unreasonable sentencing is divided in depth, and the Defendant received a letter by mutual agreement with the victims, such as receiving a letter, Q, etc., and considering the fact that a pregnant wife was a miscarriage, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (three years and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of constitutional violation, the legal provision of this case cannot be deemed to violate the Constitution for the following reasons, this part of the ground for appeal cannot be accepted.

In relation to the principle of excessive prohibition, the provision of this case stipulates that the short-term punishment shall be aggravated by twice, unlike repeated crimes under the Criminal Act.