A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Seized evidence 1 shall be confiscated.

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant 2 on the Defendant (a prison term of six months, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence sentenced to the Defendant by the first instance trial of the Prosecutor (four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, this Court tried by combining each appeal case against the judgment below, and each of the offenses against the Defendant at the time of the judgment below against the Defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, a single sentence should be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the above ex officio reversal grounds, and it is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles 330 (a thief by intrusion on a structure at night) and 342 and 330 (a thief by intrusion on a structure at night) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Act;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act committed the instant crime even though the Defendant had a number of records of punishment for the same kind of crime, and even during the period of probation for the same crime, and on January 7, 2018, the instant crime was committed during trial due to the same crime, and the Defendant invaded on another’s structure, and thus, constitutes a larceny.