The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

A prosecutor applied for amendments to a bill of amendment of the Criminal Act with the name of the crime as "Habitual larceny" in "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and the applicable provisions of the Act as "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Articles 32, 329, and 342 of the Criminal Act". The court permitted amendments to the bill of amendment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

[D.] The Criminal Procedure Act Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to a description of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but it shall be deleted from the third to eighteenth end of the first instance

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant statutory provisions concerning facts constituting an offense and Articles 332, 329, and 342 of the Criminal Act that choose a penalty (with regard to habitual larceny, comprehensive imprisonment), Article 81 subparagraph 2 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act and Articles 12 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act (the violation of Motor Vehicle Management Act and the choice of imprisonment);

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

1. Article 10(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of mental illness (with respect to habitual larceny)

1. From among concurrent crimes, the defendant living together with the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [aggravating concurrent crimes to the extent that the punishment is added up to the maximum term of two crimes prescribed by habitual larceny with heavier punishment] among concurrent crimes, the defendant committed the same kind of crime with a zymal brain disease that occurred after traffic accident in 195.