In the case of the crime of Article 1 of the judgment of the defendant, the crime of Article 2 of the judgment shall be sentenced to two years and six months.

misunderstanding of facts (the court below's judgment) since the kitchen window of victim H is small in the defendant's intrusion, there is no fact that the defendant invadedd the victim H's house through the above window and stolen things, such as a bble computer and physical exerciseation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which found guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The judgment of the court below of the second instance (the judgment of the court below) sentenced the defendant to two-year imprisonment with prison labor on January 20, 2012 by the District Court Decision 201No2602 Decided January 20, 2012 and sentenced the defendant to aggravated punishment for the larceny of repeated crimes under Article 5-4 (5) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on October 16, 2013 on the basis of the fact that the execution of the sentence was completed.

However, as a new judgment becomes final and conclusive with respect to the above judgment of the District Court 201No2602, the sentence of punishment becomes void due to the final and conclusive judgment, the sentence of imprisonment with labor for the above two years cannot be considered as a ground for aggravation of repeated crimes with completion of the execution of sentence

Nevertheless, based on the fact that the judgment of the court below of the second instance completed the execution of the above two-year imprisonment, imposing aggravated punishment as a repeated crime, such as larceny of repeated crimes, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to aggravated punishment of repeated crimes, thereby affecting

The respective punishment (the first and second judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, and the second judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 2 years) of the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

In addition, in regard to the habitual larceny crime of the first instance judgment in the summary of the pleading on November 21, 2016, the Defendant changed the applicable provisions of the law from “Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” to “Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act” and mitigated punishment for only six months from “three years of imprisonment” to “two years of imprisonment,” in violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, and the crime of the second instance judgment.