A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

One pipe cuter (No. 5) that has been seized.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Before making decisions on the grounds for appeal for ex officio judgment, this paper will examine ex officio.

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to change the term "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" in the applicable provisions of the Act as "Habitual special larceny, attempted habitual special larceny, habitual night larceny, and attempted habitual night larceny," and "Articles 5-4(1) and 331(1), 330, and 342 of the Criminal Act" in the applicable provisions of the Act as "Articles 332, 331(1), 330, and 342 of the Criminal Act", and since the court approved it, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

【Grounds for the Judgment of the Supreme Court which has been written] The criminal facts and summary of the evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they shall be quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 332, 331(1), 330, and 342 of the Criminal Act [In general, punishment for habitual special larceny (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do1184, May 27, 1975)]

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. For the reason of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, the crime of habitual special larceny under the Criminal Act is not subject to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee.

The defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case against his life, and all of the crimes of this case are led to his mistake.