A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

The forty-nine days of detention before pronouncement of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below is too unjustifiable in light of the defendant's circumstances.

2. Judgment of party members

A. Ex officio determination

First, in light of the records of this case, the court below convicted the defendant under the name of the above crime in this case, in which the defendant was prosecuted under the name of habitual larceny. The military prosecutor applied for changes in the contents of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the crime list among the defendant's criminal facts through legitimate procedures in the trial court, and received them by the party members, and therefore the object of the trial of this case is changed, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.

Furthermore, the court below applied the applicable law to habitual larceny, which is the facts charged in this case, as the Criminal Act, and also applied the applicable law to this case. Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that only statutory punishment in accordance with the legislative purpose shall be increased on the condition of the same elements as to habitual larceny as provided in the Criminal Act. Thus, the party members of the court shall apply ex officio to the facts charged in this case [On the other hand, as to whether it is necessary to amend the bill of indictment, it must be within the extent consistent with the facts charged as stated in the bill of indictment, and it does not cause substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2252, Jul. 25, 2003). In this case, the same facts charged as the facts charged are identical, and it is not necessary to exercise the defendant's right to defense, and it is not necessary to exercise the defendant's right to defense.

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

Along with the fact that habitual larcenys against the Defendant, which is the facts charged of the instant case, were changed to the point of habitual larceny and the point of habitual night larceny, the sentence of the lower court, which is a fine, cannot be maintained, in view of the fact that the statutory penalty was changed to imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than three years due to ex officio changes in applicable provisions of law as seen earlier.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed pursuant to Articles 428 and 431 subparagraph 1 of the Military Court Act, and since it is deemed sufficient for the members to self-concept by the records of this case, the defendant's criminal facts and evidence acknowledged as a member shall be decided directly by the member after pleadings pursuant to Article 435 of the same Act: Provided, That the defendant's criminal facts and evidence shall be, during the period of August 21, 2006, at least 727,000 won in total by the above methods and at around 10:10,000 won in cash and at around 10:10,000,000 won in the same way as the victim's daily life, as stated in the separate list of offenses No. 40:20,000 won in the same way, and it shall be held at least 7:30,000 won in the same way as the victim's daily life, as stated in the separate list of offenses (excluding paragraphs 3, 4, and 19).20

Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 329 and 330 of the Criminal Act.

2. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act. Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Taking into account the fact that all damaged goods have been recovered)

3. Calculation in the number of days under detention before sentencing;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

4. Suspension of execution of sentence;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration to the fact that the time of discharge from military service of the accused remains long and that the victims do not want the punishment of the accused)

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Colonel-Jin-Jin (Presiding Judge) of the Colonel-Jin-Jin-Jin (Presiding Judge)