All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 600,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable in the first and second instances of the lower court’s punishment (the first instance court’s punishment of KRW 300,00,000, the second instance court’s fine of KRW 500,00).

2. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the court of first instance and the court of appeal held the defendant jointly with the case of appeal by the court of first instance and second instance. Each of the above defendants' first and second cases of appeal by the court of first instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and each of the above defendants' first and second cases of appeal is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished with a single sentence within the term or amount of punishment for which concurrent crimes are aggravated

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is identical to each of the corresponding columns of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on June 20, 2017, was that the Defendant, on the ground of the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, was not only one week after committing the thale larceny crime as indicated in the judgment of June 26, 2017, and, thus, took the attitude of repeatedly warning the legal order by repeatedly thiefing the larceny by committing the larceny crime against the mother and child as indicated in the judgment of June 26, 2017. However, when the Defendant was in the trial of a party, the Defendant’s mistake was against all of the instant criminal acts, and the amount of damage caused by the instant criminal