Part concerning the second and third crimes in the judgment shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of Nos. 2 and 3.

2. In full view of all the circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, the background and contents leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is groundless, on the ground that it is too unreasonable in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s conviction is too unreasonable.

3. Before determining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the crimes of Articles 2 and 3 of the Decision, prior to the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the records show that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months on July 16, 2013, which was subsequent to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 24, 2013. As such, the crime of quasi-Robbery and the larceny and special larceny of this case, for which the judgment became final and conclusive, are in the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and at the same time determined a punishment after considering equity and consideration of mitigation or exemption of the punishment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower court, which did not consider and review,

4. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal against the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below is without merit, and thus dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. Since the part concerning the crime Nos. 2 and 3 in the judgment of the court below is a ground for ex officio reversal, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again made after pleading.