1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. In the trial of the court of the ex officio determination, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to change the name of the defendant to "Habitual thief", "Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes", and "Article 330 of the Criminal Act" into "Articles 332 and 330 of the Criminal Act", and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further because it was changed

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. The crime of this case committed for the reason of sentencing under Articles 332 and 330 of the Criminal Code of the relevant criminal facts is that the defendant habitually intrudes on three times at night and steals money and valuables worth KRW 20,000,000 in total at night, and thus, the crime of this case is very heavy in light of the risk of criminal law, and the defendant has been punished several times due to the same or similar crime, and in particular, the crime of this case was committed again because it was still under suspension of execution due to the night, intrusion upon residence, and larceny. Accordingly, the punishment of this case is inevitable, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, it is favorable for the defendant to make a confession and reflect against the defendant, and most of the damaged goods have been temporarily returned to the victims, and all of the victims have been agreed to during the trial.