beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a two-year imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio (revision of indictment) is made, the prosecutor ex officio examined the defendant's name of the crime in the trial of the party, as "Habitual larceny" from "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act "Article 332 and Article 329 of the Criminal Act" were applied for the amendment of indictment with regard to each of the changes, and the subject of the judgment against the defendant was changed by this court. Thus, the
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's argument, and the judgment below is again ruled as follows through pleading.
Since the facts constituting an offense and the summary of evidence recognized by the court and the part of the judgment of habituality are the same as the stated in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, they shall be quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crimes;
1. The reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Criminal Act, among repeated offenders, is that the defendant recognized all of the crimes and reflects the fact that there are circumstances that the defendant committed the crime for the purpose of preparing living expenses, while taking account of the motive for the crime, the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the frequency of crimes, such as giving and receiving imprisonment without prison labor which has been made in cash over several times, and the details of specific crimes, are not good in light of the quality of the crime, the damage has not been recovered, and the damage has not been recovered, and the fact that the defendant committed the repeated crime during the period of a repeated crime due to the same kind of crime is disadvantageously considered. Such arguments are made after