The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant found 300,000 won in cash 30,000 won in front of the subway station No. 7 located in Seomun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul around July 30, 2015 and brought about theft. According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny, etc. at the Seoul Southern District Court on December 10, 2015 and filed an appeal and continued the appeal trial at the present time. The criminal facts of the judgment of the first instance court as well as the facts charged of the instant case are considered to have been reduced by the Defendant’s on the face of the theftproof wall in light of the means and methods of the crime, the period of the crime, and the Defendant’s criminal records.

Therefore, the facts charged in the instant case, which was committed before the pronouncement of the said judgment and the facts charged prior to the said judgment, are in the relation of habitual larceny under the Criminal Act, which is a crime under the substantive law.

In such a case, the effect of the indictment on habitual offenders lies in the whole criminal facts that are identical to the criminal facts against which the prosecution is instituted, and the time of the pronouncement of the final judgment, which is the most probable time to examine the facts. As such, once a prosecutor institutes a prosecution for habitual larceny and then prosecutes part of the larceny in an independent larceny until the above standard which affects the effect of the prosecution, it cannot be allowed as it constitutes a double indictment for the same case in which the prosecution is instituted (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do331, Aug. 20, 2004, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the prosecution of this case constitutes a case in which the prosecution of this case is instituted again, and thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.