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

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, the prosecutor applied for changes in the applicable provisions to "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act" and "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act", and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as they were, since the defendant's name of the crime against the defendant was changed to "Habitual larceny" in the court of appeal.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. The relevant provision of the Criminal Act and Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and the selection of a sentence cannot be deemed to be minor in cases where the defendant re-offenders the same kind of crime during the period of suspension of execution.

In addition, most damages have not been recovered.

However, it is recognized that the defendant is led to confession and reflect, and actively cooperate in the investigation.

In addition, the Constitutional Court rendered that Article 329 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applied to the judgment subject to the review of this case violates the Constitution (the Constitutional Court Order 2014Hun-Ga16, 19, 23 (merged) dated February 26, 2015), and accordingly, the prosecutor's statutory penalty is more minor in the trial.