A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

The seized evidence Nos. 1 (T. 1) (3).

The punishment of the original court (the first instance court; the first instance court; the first year and confiscation; the second instance court; imprisonment of six months) is unreasonable.

Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, each appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated. Each offense by the defendant of the judgment below constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus the judgment of the court below should be rendered concurrently in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is ruled as follows through pleading.

[Dao-written judgment] The criminal facts against the defendant recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the statements in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act in relation to the relevant criminal facts and Article 321 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of larceny and the choice of imprisonment), respectively, of the relevant criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Code has a large number of identical flight records for the defendant, and there are criminal records for which suspended sentence was sentenced to the same previous department in 2000, and the crime of this case has been repeatedly stolen by using force that the defendant had possessed in advance without any particular reason, and it is not good that the defendant continued to commit the crime even while he is investigated into the case [2013 Godan987], and it is not agreed with the victims. However, the defendant recognized the facts charged of this case and against his mistake.