All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and June, and the second instance: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months) is too unreasonable;

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the appeal cases against the lower judgment were consolidated by examining the reasoning of the judgment ex officio, and the offense of the lower judgment constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower court should simultaneously render a judgment in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, cannot be maintained.

3. According to the conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the unfair argument of sentencing, as the grounds for reversal ex officio exist. It is so decided as follows.

Criminal facts

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

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of intrusion on a structure at night, choice of imprisonment), Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 330 of the Criminal Act (a point of larceny by intrusion on a structure at night), Article 331 (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act (a point of attempted larceny by intrusion on a structure at night), Articles 342 and 330 of the Criminal Act (a point of attempted larceny by intrusion on a structure at night);

1. The reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that aggravated concurrent crimes are committed by the defendant, and the wife and children are divided. However, even though the defendant repeatedly intrudes into hospitals, churches, etc. over several occasions, the crime of this case that stolen goods, and the victim's damage has not been recovered, and the defendant has been sentenced five times to imprisonment for the same crime, taking into account all the conditions for sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, sexual behavior, environment, etc. of the defendant.