A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

A. The Defendant was habitually indicted for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) with the effect that he/she stolens the victims’ goods; the lower court sentenced the Defendant to two years, and the Defendant and the prosecutor appealed against the lower judgment.

B. On July 4, 2014, the appellate court reversed the lower judgment and sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment by applying Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act. The said judgment became final and conclusive on July 12, 2014.

C. On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court decided that Article 329 of the Criminal Act and the attempted portion thereof violate the Constitution, among Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, are against the Constitution.

On April 16, 2015, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial based on Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act as it constitutes a final judgment of conviction based on the legal provision that the Constitutional Court decided unconstitutionality, and the decision to commence the retrial became final and conclusive.

2. The defendant asserts that the summary of the grounds for appeal in the judgment of the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unfasible, and the prosecutor is too unfased and unreasonable.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the name of the defendant against "Habitual larceny" from "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and the applicable provisions of the Act to "Articles 5-4 (1) and 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act". The judgment of the court below was changed by the permission of this court.