The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor changed the name of the criminal defendant with respect to the thief crime from "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "Habitual thief", and withdraws "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" in the applicable provisions of this Act and applied for permission to change the bill of indictment as of March 23, 2015, and this court permitted it. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Therefore, 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 ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The substance of the evidence and the criminal facts recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment below in addition to changing the "1. Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)" of the 1. Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to 1. Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) to 1.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act that apply to criminal facts, the choice of punishment (to be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, inclusive), Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (Fraud, Selection of Imprisonment with prison labor), Article 70 (1) 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (to be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, inclusive);

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

1. Among concurrent crimes, each of the crimes of this case in the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (up to the amount of concurrent crimes stipulated in the most severe criminal offense) is not likely to be a crime committed by the defendant who habitually steals the victims' property and uses a stolen credit card.

The defendant.