The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and four months.

1. According to the progress records of the case, the following facts are acknowledged. A.

On July 24, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and appealed around that time.

B. On November 13, 2014, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the lower court and sentenced the Defendant to two years and four months of imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as “the judgment on review”), and the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive around that time as the Defendant did not appeal.

C. On March 4, 2016, the Defendant requested a retrial of this case. On June 23, 2016, this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the grounds that there was a ground for retrial under Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act in the judgment subject to retrial.

After that, there was no legitimate filing of a complaint within the appeal period, the decision to commence the retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment) by the lower court (e., three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the contents that the name of the crime in the indictment is "Habitual larceny" from "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Articles 32 and 329 of the Criminal Act" and "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act". Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was impossible to maintain as it is.

4. 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 assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

【Discretionary Judgment] Summary of Criminal facts and Evidence is recognized by this Court.