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

1,000,000 square meters (No. 1) of a seized stock farm.

A. The lower court, while recognizing the charge of habitual larceny as guilty, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby failing to apply Article 342 of the Criminal Act, which is a provision that attempted larceny.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, etc.) on the assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. As stated in the judgment of the court below, the public prosecutor held that the legal principles of the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles are as follows: “The defendant habitually attempted to steals the victim’s property but failed to commit it;” and the applicable provisions of the law are as follows: “Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Articles 342, 329, 35, and 48(1) of the Criminal Act; however, the public prosecutor instituted a public prosecution; however, on the third public trial of the court of the court below, applied for permission for modification of the legal principles to change the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act to “Articles 342 (Attempts Provisions), 32, 329, 35, and 48(1)

However, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged on April 24, 2015, but only applied “Article 332 and Article 329 of the Criminal Act” as “the pertinent provision on criminal facts.”

However, the facts constituting an attempted crime in the judgment of the court below fall under the category of an attempted crime, and the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act applies to Articles 342, 332, and 329. The court below erred by omitting Article 342 of the Criminal Act.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is with merit. Thus, without examining the argument of unfair sentencing, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is rendered again through pleading.

Criminal facts

The main judgment of the court below is as follows.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 342, 332, or 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Articles 342, 332, and 329 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 18 years;

2. Sentence;