A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

2. According to the records of destruction ex officio, the Defendant may be found to have been sentenced to imprisonment on May 31, 2013 with prison labor for night intrusion larceny at the Seo-gu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court, for six months or one year of suspended execution, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 8, 2013.

Since each of the crimes of this case is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime subject to the above final judgment, the punishment shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity in cases where the judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Since the application of the statutes of the lower judgment is omitted, there

Pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the following judgment shall be rendered again after pleading

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts constituting a crime and evidence admitted by this court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below, except for the addition of "the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor and one year of suspended execution due to night intrusion larceny at night from the Seo-gu District Court's Branch Branch on May 31, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 8, 2013" in the first head of the facts constituting a crime as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure

Application of Statutes

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

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

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant, on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, committed each of the instant crimes even though he/she had been punished three times for the same kind of crime.

However, each of the crimes in this case committed a theft of a steel trial for tree protection installed on a roadside by using a gap where surveillance was neglected.