Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Repeat theft under the Aggravated Punishment Act and recidivism aggravation
Supreme Court, May 14, 2020, 2019Do18947 (judgment)
Case name: 특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)·주거침입
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does Article 5-4(5)(i) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, in the version amended and effective on 6 January 2016, create a new element apart from recidivism under Article 35 of the Criminal Act, and must the sentence be fixed within the range that results from applying recidivism aggravation under Article 35 again to the statutory sentence set in that provision?
Holding
Yes to both. Read by its legislative purpose, its form and its differences from Article 35 of the Criminal Act, the provision creates an element of its own: a person who has received three or more terms of imprisonment for the offences in Articles 329 to 331 of the Criminal Act, including attempts, and who commits one of those offences again during the recidivism period is punished by a heavier statutory sentence than the Criminal Act provides. The sentencing court must then fix the sentence within the range that recidivism aggravation under Article 35 produces on top of that statutory sentence.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
처벌 규정은 형법 제35조(누범) 규정과는 별개로 ‘형법 제329조부터 제331조까지의 죄(미수범 포함)를 범하여 세 번 이상 징역형을 받은 사람이 그 누범 기간 중에 다시 해당 범죄를 저지른 경우에 형법보다 무거운 법정형으로 처벌한다’는 내용의 새로운 구성요건을 창설한 것으로 해석해야 한다. 따라서 처벌 규정에 정한 형에 다시 형법 제35조의 누범가중한 형기범위 내에서 처단형을 정하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The penalty provision must be interpreted as creating a new constituent element, separate from Article 35 of the Criminal Act (recidivism), to the effect that "a person who, having committed any crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act (including attempts) and having been sentenced to imprisonment three or more times, again commits the relevant crime during the recidivism period shall be punished by a statutory penalty heavier than that under the Criminal Act." Therefore, in addition to the punishment provided in the penalty provision, the sentence to be imposed must be determined within the range of the term of sentence aggravated for recidivism under Article 35 of the Criminal Act.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
‘형법 제329조부터 제331조까지의 죄(미수범 포함)를 범하여 세 번 이상 징역형을 받은 사람이 그 누범 기간 중에 다시 해당 범죄를 저지른 경우에 형법보다 무거운 법정형으로 처벌한다’는 내용의 새로운 구성요건을 창설한 것으로 해석해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
It must be interpreted as creating a new constituent element to the effect that "a person who, having committed any crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act (including attempts) and having been sentenced to imprisonment three or more times, again commits the relevant crime during the recidivism period shall be punished by a statutory penalty heavier than that under the Criminal Act."
Factors
- 입법 취지가 반복적으로 범행을 저지르는 절도 사범에 관한 법정형을 강화하기 위한 데 있고
- 조문의 체계가 일정한 구성요건을 규정하는 형식으로 되어 있으며
- 적용요건이나 효과도 형법 제35조와 달리 규정되어 있다
- ‘형법 제329조부터 제331조까지의 죄(미수범 포함)를 범하여 세 번 이상 징역형을 받은 사람이 그 누범 기간 중에 다시 해당 범죄를 저지른 경우에 형법보다 무거운 법정형으로 처벌한다’
Unofficial English translation
• the legislative purpose was to strengthen the statutory penalty for theft offenders who repeatedly commit offenses,
• the structure of the provision is in the form of prescribing certain constituent elements, and
• the requirements for application and the effects are also prescribed differently from Article 35 of the Criminal Act,
• "a person who, having committed any crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act (including attempts) and having been sentenced to imprisonment three or more times, again commits the relevant crime during the recidivism period shall be punished by a statutory penalty heavier than that under the Criminal Act"
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1994. 9. 27. 선고 94도1391 판결(공1994하, 2915)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 94Do1391 decided September 27, 1994 (Gong 1994 Ha, 2915)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1994. 9. 27. 선고 94도1391 판결(공1994하, 2915), 대법원 2006. 4. 28. 선고 2006도1296 판결, 대법원 2006. 12. 8. 선고 2006도6886 판결(공2007상, 171)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does the same reading apply to the other items of Article 5-4(5), which punish a repeat offender for robbery and the other offences listed in the chapeau, where the statutory sentence set in each item differs from that in item (i)?
The judgment on remand will show how the recidivism-aggravated range was applied to these theft and attempted theft acts. Any amendment to Article 5-4(5) of the Aggravated Punishment Act or to Article 35 of the Criminal Act, or a later Supreme Court decision on the relation between a special statute's statutory sentence and recidivism, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Does the same reading apply to the other items of Article 5-4(5), which punish a repeat offender for robbery and the other offences listed in the chapeau, where the statutory sentence set in each item differs from that in item (i)?” vs Independent “How should multiple prior offenses adjudicated together be counted toward the requirement of at least three prior prison sentences?”
The primary reading asks whether the same reading extends to the other items of Article 5-4(5), while the independent reading asks how multiple prior offenses tried together count toward the three-sentence requirement.
처벌 규정은 형법 제35조(누범) 규정과는 별개로 ‘형법 제329조부터 제331조까지의 죄(미수범 포함)를 범하여 세 번 이상 징역형을 받은 사람이 그 누범 기간 중에 다시 해당 범죄를 저지른 경우에 형법보다 무거운 법정형으로 처벌한다’는 내용의 새로운 구성요건을 창설한 것으로 해석해야 한다. 따라서 처벌 규정에 정한 형에 다시 형법 제35조의 누범가중한 형기범위 내에서 처단형을 정하여야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Uijeongbu District Court, in its judgment of 28 November 2019 (2019No2555), treated Article 5-4(5)(i) of the Aggravated Punishment Act as a special rule on recidivism aggravation and sentenced the defendant on the theft count under that provision without applying recidivism aggravation under Article 35 of the Criminal Act. The charge was that the defendant, having been sentenced to imprisonment three times for theft and other offences and finished serving the last sentence on 14 August 2018, stole another person's property once on about 16 May 2019 and stole or tried to steal a total of nine more times between 18 May and 17 June 2019.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the meaning of that provision and made an error affecting the judgment, because the provision creates a new element and recidivism aggravation under Article 35 must still be applied within the range it produces. Since the court below treated the theft count and the remaining counts as in concurrence under the first clause of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and imposed one sentence, the whole judgment was reversed and the case was sent back to the Uijeongbu District Court for retrial.
Distinguishing conditions
- A person who has not received three or more terms of imprisonment for the offences in Articles 329 to 331 of the Criminal Act, since the provision applies only to such a person.
- A re-offence committed outside the recidivism period, since the element the Court described covers the offence committed during that period.
- An offence other than the offences in Articles 329 to 331 of the Criminal Act, including attempts, because item (i) covers only those offences.
Record verification notes
Set each earlier sentence against the element one by one: how many there were, which offences they were for, and whether each was a term of imprisonment imposed for theft under Articles 329 to 331 of the Criminal Act. Then confirm that every theft now charged was committed during the recidivism period and after 6 January 2016, when the amended provision took effect. Finally, check whether the theft count stands alone or in concurrence with the other counts, since a single sentence for concurrence drew the whole judgment into the reversal.
From the official text
Points at issue
2016. 1. 6. 법률 제13717호로 개정·시행된 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의4 제5항 제1호가 형법 제35조(누범)와는 별개로 새로운 구성요건을 창설한 것인지 여부(적극) 및 위 처벌 규정에 정한 형에 다시 형법 제35조의 누범가중한 형기범위 내에서 처단형을 정하여야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether Article 5-4 (5) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Crimes, as amended and enforced by Act No. 13717 on January 6, 2016, created a new constituent element separate from Article 35 of the Criminal Act (recidivism) (affirmative) and whether, in addition to the punishment provided in the above penalty provision, the sentence to be imposed must be determined within the range of the term of sentence aggravated for recidivism under Article 35 of the Criminal Act (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
2016. 1. 6. 법률 제13717호로 개정·시행된 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의4 제5항은 “형법 제329조부터 제331조까지, 제333조부터 제336조까지 및 제340조·제362조의 죄 또는 그 미수죄로 세 번 이상 징역형을 받은 사람이 다시 이들 죄를 범하여 누범으로 처벌하는 경우에는 다음 각호의 구분에 따라 가중처벌한다.”라고 규정하면서, 같은 항 제1호(이하 ‘처벌 규정’이라고 한다)는 ‘형법 제329조부터 제331조까지의 죄(미수범을 포함한다)를 범한 경우에는 2년 이상 20년 이하의 징역에 처한다’고 규정하고 있다. 처벌 규정은 입법 취지가 반복적으로 범행을 저지르는 절도 사범에 관한 법정형을 강화하기 위한 데 있고, 조문의 체계가 일정한 구성요건을 규정하는 형식으로 되어 있으며, 적용요건이나 효과도 형법 제35조와 달리 규정되어 있다. 이러한 처벌 규정의 입법 취지, 형식 및 형법 제35조와의 차이점 등에 비추어 보면, 처벌 규정은 형법 제35조(누범) 규정과는 별개로 ‘형법 제329조부터 제331조까지의 죄(미수범 포함)를 범하여 세 번 이상 징역형을 받은 사람이 그 누범 기간 중에 다시 해당 범죄를 저지른 경우에 형법보다 무거운 법정형으로 처벌한다’는 내용의 새로운 구성요건을 창설한 것으로 해석해야 한다. 따라서 처벌 규정에 정한 형에 다시 형법 제35조의 누범가중한 형기범위 내에서 처단형을 정하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 의정부지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Provisions referred to
특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의4 제5항 제1호, 형법 제35조, 제329조, 제330조, 제331조, 제342조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger