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

Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of seized evidence C shall be the victim C.

A. On July 2, 2014, the Defendant was indicted as a charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014Kadan2019, and on August 14, 2014, the above court did not recognize the habitual larceny of the Defendant and was sentenced to the judgment below that the Defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months, etc. on the ground that the Defendant was guilty. On the grounds that the prosecutor appeals against this, the above court accepted the prosecutor’s appeal on October 16, 2014 on the grounds that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on habitualness of the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and thereby, sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for one year and six months, etc., and the judgment of the appellate court (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to the judgment”) became final and conclusive on October 28, 2014.

B. On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that “the part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act, etc. in Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010) is unconstitutional.” Accordingly, the said provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

C. On June 26, 2015, the Defendant rendered a request for a retrial against the instant judgment subject to a retrial to the Seoul Northern District Court. On July 17, 2015, the said court rendered the instant judgment subject to a retrial on the ground that there was a ground for retrial under Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act in the instant judgment subject to a retrial, and the instant judgment to commence a retrial became final and conclusive later.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is identical to each of the larceny crimes in this case and the objects and methods of the crime.