The meaning of "a person who commits multiple crimes" in Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes means "a person who commits multiple crimes".

Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that "the person who commits multiple crimes" shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for more than three times, and it is reasonable to interpret that "the defendant commits the same crime as the previous crime that causes a repeated crime." Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the defendants are crimes of the same kind as the previous crime. Thus, the defendants are criminal offenders such as habitual night, night, intrusion, special larceny, habitual night, structure, larceny, habitual larceny, habitual larceny, and habitual robbery, etc., and there is no criminal record of robbery, and if they again commit special robbery during the repeated crime period, they cannot be deemed to fall under Article 5-4 (5) of the same Act, but only fall under Article 334

Article 5-4 of the Aggravated Punishment

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for three years, and imprisonment for two years and six months, respectively.

One hundred and twenty days of detention days prior to the rendering of this judgment against the defendant 2 shall be included in the above sentence against the same defendant.

The seized public bond securities of 10,000 won (No. 1) shall be returned to the victim non-indicted 1.

Defendant 1 was released from Gwangju prison on May 2, 1983, which was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months at the Gwangju District Court on October 27, 1982, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 3 years from the Seoul District Court on December 7, 1984 and 3 years from the suspension of execution, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and 7 years from the Seoul High Court on April 1, 1986, and 10 years from the Seoul High Court's imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years and 10 years from the Busan District Court's imprisonment with prison labor for 10 days from the Busan District Court's imprisonment with prison labor for 10 days, and for 2 years from the Busan District Court's imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years and 10 years from the Busan District Court's imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years and 3 years from the Busan District Court's imprisonment with prison labor for 1980 square meters, and the defendant 2 was sentenced to the same prison.

The remainder of the facts in the judgment, except the first head's previous conviction, shall not be

1. In the first trial record, the Defendants’ partial statements corresponding thereto are written;

1. Each protocol of suspect examination against the Defendants of the prosecutor, which corresponds to this

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the Defendants, Nonindicted 5, and 6 prepared by the judicial police assistant, and each protocol of statement of Nonindicted 4, 1, 7, and 8, corresponding to these statements

1. In full view of the existence, etc. of 10,000 won (No. 1) and 27 copies (No. 1), seized public bonds of the Busan City waterworks;

The finding of the first head of the ruling shall:

1. In the first trial record, the Defendants’ respective statements corresponding thereto are written;

1. The statement that corresponds to the previous conviction of the same accused among the statement statement made by the public prosecutor with respect to Defendant 1;

1. Among the investigation reports on Nonindicted 9’s preparation report, the statement regarding the failure to take measures against Defendant 1 and the confirmation thereof;

1. Each record of criminal records against the Defendants of the head of Busan Northern Police Station, which corresponds to the previous records of the judgment; and

1. Among copies of each written judgment bound in the trial records, it can be recognized by the statement consistent with the previous records of the judgment against Defendant 1. Thus, all the facts of the judgment are sufficient to prove.

The Defendants’ act constitutes Article 334(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act. The Defendants’ act is one of the crimes stipulated in Article 334(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, and each of the special larceny of their head as indicated in the judgment against Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 is two previous crimes of habitual stolen of head as indicated in the judgment against Defendant 1, and each repeated crime is taken within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act pursuant to Article 35 of the same Act. The special robbery of the Defendants’ judgment is one of the crimes of quasi-Robbery of head as indicated in the judgment against Defendant 1, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Since the first head as indicated in the judgment against Defendant 2 is the concurrent crimes of Article 37(1) of the same Act and the latter part of Article 39(1) of the same Act are two separate crimes of imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 5 years and one of the crimes of this case’s punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for each of this case.

(A) Grounds for recognizing a party member as a special robbery due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

Since Defendant 1 was sentenced to imprisonment not less than three times due to habitual robbery, special larceny, habitual robbery, robbery, etc., Defendant 2’s special robbery, habitual larceny and acquisition of stolen articles, and special robbery as stated in the judgment, and Defendant 1 is punished as a repeated crime. Thus, Defendants’ above crime constitutes Article 5-4(5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and should be punished as prescribed in Article 5-3 of the same Act. The facts that Defendants committed the above crime and the facts that Defendants should be punished as repeated robbery are included in the first trial record and the statement of statement about Defendant 1, which correspond to the above crime, and the facts that Defendants should be punished as the crime of robbery are also included in the crime of habitual robbery. Since it is reasonable that Defendants 2 were punished as a repeated crime under Article 5-4(3) of the same Act and Article 5-4(5) of the same Act and the facts that correspond to the above crime of habitual robbery are included in the crime of robbery at night prior to the issuance of the first trial record and the protocol.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Hong Il-il (Presiding Judge)