Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

A. The sentence of a judgment subject to a retrial by misunderstanding legal principles is four years of imprisonment with prison labor for a term of two years.

The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a two-year period on the ground that the suspended sentence is invalidated is in violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

B. The punishment of the lower court is heavy.

2. We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal ex officio prior to the argument.

On January 30, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and six months on November 25, 2014 and on December 2, 2012 of the same year, on the grounds that he habitually stolen the property owned by the Victim S, at Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court). The judgment became final and conclusive on February 7, 2015.

In light of the facts charged against the defendant and the method of the crime, the period of the crime, and the criminal records of the defendant, the crime of larceny in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the defendant, which became final and conclusive, is a comprehensive crime of larceny in case of habitual night residence.

The effect of the judgment on the crime of larceny (thief) in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes reaches the facts charged against the defendant who is a single comprehensive crime

Since the facts charged against the defendant constitutes a final judgment, a judgment of acquittal should be made in accordance with Article 326 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's grounds for appeal, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Judgment to be used again]

1. Facts charged;

A. From January 1, 2012 to the end of the same month, the Defendant: (a) from the “L to the operation of the Victim K in Southyang-siJ”, the Defendant was the victim’s ownership, who had been in the said place within four times between the two places of restaurants to the point of delivery and the point of delivery, while the Defendant was in the said place of restaurant and the victim flabeds or sold one eye.