A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

2. The judgment was given that the Defendant again committed the same kind of crime during the period of the same repeated crime, and committed a part of the crime even during the trial, etc. However, the Defendant is deemed to have committed the crime of this case, and the Defendant’s age and health seems to be weak. Although there are many records of punishment for the same kind of crime, the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime since 2012, and there was no record of punishment in addition to the punishment for the violation of the Motor Vehicle Management Act before being punished, and the Defendant appears to have committed the crime because it is difficult for him to live, and there was a habit of larceny that could be criticized.

Since it is difficult to see that the children of the defendant re-convened after the instant case will be responsible for living of the defendant, the risk of recidivism is reduced, and the scope of the recommended punishment [the scope of the punishment [the basic crime and the concurrent crime: the four types of theft of general property in the thief group, the basic crime and the 1,2 concurrent crimes (the crime: intrusion theft), the scope of the recommended punishment for the crime of larceny of general property in the thief group (the mitigated area - the crime of repeated crime which is a special aggravated factor and the crime of living which is a special mitigation factor, the mitigation factors belonging to the act person are considered), but the scope of the final recommended punishment according to the standards for processing multiple crimes: August to 6, and August to 9], and all other conditions on the records and changes in the sentencing of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence, result, etc., should be considered, the court below's decision that the punishment is unfair.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.