The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the accused (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. In full view of all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, etc., the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is well-grounded, given that the Defendant’s confession and mistake are against the Defendant, and the number of thefts is twice and the value or amount of stolen goods is not the maximum amount.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the following judgment is rendered again after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as the statement in each 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 Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, as well as Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes for which the choice

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes: Provided, That the crime of larceny is limited to the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act with heavy penalty provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes);

1. The fourth instance judgment of the court below for discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 ( considered favorable circumstances in the preceding way) of the Criminal Act; and

2. Since it is apparent that “one to two months” in the first sentence of the sentence is a clerical error in the “one year and two months”, the ex officio correction is made.

A person shall be appointed.