The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and three years of suspended execution) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. As to the facts charged in the instant case at the trial of the prosecution, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the name of the crime as "Habitual larceny", and the applicable provisions of the Act as "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act", and this court granted permission.

As such, since the subject of the judgment was changed in the trial, the judgment of the court below is no longer able to be maintained.

(b) Stolens that omitted from a declaration of return and that whose reasons for return to the victim are apparent shall be sentenced to return to the victim by judgment;

(Article 33(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, 102 (No. 11) of the seized EL-type iron is recognized as the stolen goods owned or possessed by a person who was not killed in the name, as the stolen goods listed in the annexed list of crimes No. 17 and No. 19 of the judgment of the court below. C purchased 102 of the stolen EL-type iron bars, and voluntarily submitted it to the investigation agency.

(Evidence Records No. 328, 329, 393 pages). C, on July 18, 2014, was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for the crime of acquisition of stolen goods in the Daejeon District Court’s Support, Daejeon District Court, on July 26, 2014, on the ground that a negligence in the course of business, neglecting the judgment on stolen goods, purchased 102 goods, which are stolen goods, from the Defendant by negligence. The said judgment became final and conclusive on July 26, 2014.

(The Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2014No. 489). The above seized articles should have been sentenced to return to the victim by judgment, but the court below omitted it.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

b) the summary of the evidence and evidence.