The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The seized Samsung ELDD (LS) Tybro (TV) monitor.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the original judgment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Since habitual special larceny, as stated in the judgment of the court below, is a crime falling under Articles 332 and 331(1) of the Criminal Act, and the statutory penalty is from 1 year and 6 months to 15 years, in order to sentence the Defendant a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and 6 months, it should have been mitigated pursuant to Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act.

However, the lower judgment, while sentencing one year to the Defendant, erred by omitting discretionary mitigation in the application of statutes, thereby violating the statutory minimum limit.

3. 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, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court shall be as shown in the respective columns of the judgment below.

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is quoted as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 332, 330, 342, and 331(1) (including habitual special larceny and comprehensive) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, Article 152 Subparag. 1, Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment (a point of embezzlement and choice of imprisonment);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following favorable circumstances):

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 333(1) of the Return Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant has divided and reflected his mistake in depth, partly damaged goods have been returned to the victims, the fact that some victims have agreed smoothly with the victims, the economic form is not good, and the most supported by two children alone.

However, the crime of larceny of this case is habitually committed by the defendant.