A. In light of the facts constituting the crime committed by the Defendant, the victims are not subject to the punishment of the Defendant, the circumstances leading up to the crime, and the intent of the Defendant’s family members, etc., each of the judgment of the first instance (party members 2015 No. 4215: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, party members 2016 No. 161: 6 months) is deemed unfair.

B. In light of the following: (a) the instant crime committed by a prosecutor (as to the judgment of the first instance court of the case No. 2016No. 161), the Defendant is a type of intrusion larceny; and (b) the Defendant already committed the same type of crime, such as special larceny, and committed a second offense, despite the past record of the crime, which was committed twice a suspended sentence, the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months sentenced by the first instance court is too un

2. Prior to the judgment of ex officio determination of the defendant and the prosecutor's unfair argument in sentencing, this court tried by combining each appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance. Each of the crimes in the judgment of first instance against the defendant among the judgment of first instance of the 2015 No. 4215 case and each of the crimes in the judgment of first instance of the 2016 No. 161 case are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Since each of the crimes in the judgment of first instance of the 2016 No. 161 case is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, one of the crimes in the judgment of first instance against the defendant among the judgment of first instance of the 2015 No. 4215 case and the judgment of first instance of the 2016 No. 161 case cannot be maintained any more in this point.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is reversed ex officio as seen earlier, and thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in entirety among the judgment of the first instance court of the case No. 2015 No. 4215 and the judgment of the first instance court of the case No. 2016 and the party members 2016 No. 161, and it is again decided following the pleadings.