The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

A. On June 26, 2014, the Defendant lodged an appeal after having been sentenced to four years of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) at the District Court.

B. On September 19, 2014, the appellate court, reversed the judgment of the lower court and sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”), and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive due to the dismissal of the final appeal by the Defendant while the final appeal was dismissed.

(c)

Since then, the Defendant filed a petition for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial, this court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on January 26, 2016, and the decision to commence the new trial became final and conclusive at that time.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to mislead others as to the facts and the legal principles, the Defendant, with a mental disorder, found the goods displayed in the marina as his own, and removed them from the main machine, packing paper, theft prevention attitude, etc., and later, the Defendant was found to have been in a different place within the marina. Thus, the Defendant did not steals the said goods.

B. The Defendant, who is not physically and mentally weak, committed an act identical to the description in the above paragraph A, by misunderstanding that he was himself about the items displayed in marina due to mental illness, such as symptoms that are difficult to suppress the impulse of military register, symptoms that are difficult to suppress the impulse of larceny, uneasiness and depressions following the larceny act. The Defendant was in a mental and physical state.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor may change the Defendant’s name of “violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief)” as “Habitual larceny”; “Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; and Article 329 of the Criminal Act” under the applicable law as “Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act”; and the facts charged as indicated below.