The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

One room for mountain use (No. 10) that has been seized.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, confiscation) of the lower court is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The following should be taken into account: (a) the Defendant recognized his/her mistake and reflects his/her mistake; (b) the vehicle damaged by the embezzlement was returned to the victim; and (c) the equity between the judgment and the case of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should be taken into account.

However, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crimes, and in particular, the special larceny crime is highly likely to be criticized in that it is a crime that has established and implemented a thorough plan in advance.

The crime of special larceny of this case was committed by accomplices who share their roles in a systematic manner and infringed upon another person's residence at a low level, and the safe was used as the sixth, and it is not very good that the method of crime is interviewed and the quality of the crime is committed.

The defendant set up a plan and proposed the plan to commit the crime first, and led all of the crimes.

The amount of damage caused by each of the crimes of this case exceeds KRW 170 million, and the damage was almost not recovered, and there was no contribution of the defendant to the part where the accomplice partially recovered the damage.

Accordingly, each of the victims of this case is still seeking punishment for the defendant.

Considering such unfavorable circumstances as well as the motive and background of the instant crime, method, circumstances before and after the instant crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable because it is too uneasible even considering the favorable circumstances as seen earlier.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is summary of facts and evidence.