The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years and by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 329 and 331(2) of the Criminal Act (Defendant A) or Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act (Defendant B) apply to the part concerning habitual larceny or habitual special larceny (Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, but the Constitutional Court’s decision that “the part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act among Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” is that “the part concerning the facts charged in the instant case shall be punished as habitual larceny or habitual special larceny.”

B. Defendant B did not commit each of the crimes of this case in collusion with Defendant A, but was erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below.

C. The respective sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (the four years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, and the two years of imprisonment for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The ex officio determination prosecutor changed the term “violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” among the names of the crimes against the Defendants to “Habitual special larceny”, and the term “Articles 5-4(6) and (1), 329 and 331(2) of the Criminal Act” among the applicable provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendant A shall be read as “Articles 332, 331(2) and (1), and 329 of the Criminal Act”, and “Article 5-4(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act” from among the applicable provisions of the Act on the A of Specific Crimes against Defendant B, to “Articles 32 and 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act”, respectively, and this court approved the amendment of the Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants became no longer able to be maintained as it is due to changes in the subject of the judgment.

However, the defendant B's assertion of misunderstanding of facts still exists even though there is such a ground for ex officio reversal.