1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years;

3. One mountain (No. 41) seized.

1. According to the progress records of the case, the following facts are recognized:

A. The Defendant was prosecuted for committing a thief violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the lower court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and the Defendant appealed against the lower judgment.

B. On January 28, 2015, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the court below on January 28, 2015, and applied Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same) and Article 329 of the Criminal Act, sentenced the defendant to two years and eight months, etc., and the above judgment was finalized on February 5, 2015.

C. On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court decided on February 26, 2014Hun-Ga16, 23 (merged), which became final and conclusive after the judgment subject to a retrial, that Article 329 of the Criminal Act is unconstitutional.

On April 7, 2015, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial based on the provision of the law that the Constitutional Court decided to have unconstitutionality, and decided that there was a ground for retrial under the main text of Article 47(3) and (4) of the Constitutional Court Act, and the above decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed by the lower court is unreasonable as it is excessively unreasonable.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, the prosecutor applied for changes in the applicable provisions to "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act" and "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act", and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as they were, since the defendant's name of the crime against the defendant was changed to "Habitual larceny" in the court of appeal.

4. Conclusion.