The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to depression, military register barriers, and marbing intelligence at the time of committing the instant habitual larceny; (b) thus, mitigation of mental disorder shall apply to the crime of habitual larceny; and (c) the punishment imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on January 22, 2015 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da7843, Jan. 30, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 30, 2015. Since each offense in the judgment of the court below is in a concurrent relationship with the above offense for which judgment became final and conclusive under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, each offense in the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act should be determined by taking into account equity with the above offense for which judgment becomes final and conclusive.

In addition, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of the lower judgment to the effect that the name of the crime of the lower court [2013Da1431] is "Habitual larceny" from "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and Article 329 of the Criminal Act are "Articles 332 and 329"

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mental disability still is subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined.

B. The court below rejected the above assertion in detail, on the ground that the Defendant alleged the same as the grounds for appeal in this part of this part of the judgment of the court below, under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”.