The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The sentencing of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio the name of the thief in the trial, and applied for changes in the contents of this part of the applicable provisions of this Act to “Habitual thief” and “Articles 32 and 329 of the Criminal Act,” respectively, and the court below did not maintain the judgment below as it changed the object of the judgment upon permission for changes

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, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and the following decision is delivered through pleadings.

Criminal facts

The summary of the judgment of the court below is as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, in addition to the case where the "violation of law in accordance with the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" in Part 7 of the second instance judgment is deemed to be "Habitual larceny". Thus, it is cited as it is

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 332 of the Criminal Act, Article 32 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 70 (1) 3 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 352 and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for a crime (the commission of fraud, the selection of imprisonment), Article 357 (1) of the Criminal Act (the commission of attempted fraud and the selection of imprisonment)

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Grounds for sentencing of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes prescribed in fraud around April 10, 2014), among concurrent crimes;

1. There are extenuating circumstances such as the following: (a) the Defendant repented and reflected his mistake at 25 years of age; (b) the return of stolen goods to some victims; and (c) the Defendant’s leakage and the Defendant’s wife.

2. Meanwhile, the instant crime is habitually committed by the Defendant during the same repeated period.