The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The judgment of the court below that applied the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle.

B. In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant is against unreasonable sentencing, the crime of this case is not planned, but contingent, the amount of damage, the agreement with some victims, and the fact that the applicable provisions of law are changed to Article 332 of the Criminal Act which is lower than that of the Constitutional Court by the amendment of indictment, etc., the two-year imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act provides that the crime for which judgment has become final and the crime committed before the final judgment has become final and conclusive shall be deemed concurrent crimes. Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act provides that concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced to punishment in consideration of equity in cases where the crime and the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive are concurrently adjudicated, but in such cases, punishment may

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) at the Jung-gu District Court on January 14, 2013, and deemed that the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed on April 12, 2013 and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time. The crime of habitual larceny of this case from August 16, 2010, which was prior to

8. Since habitual larceny of this case was committed up to 17. Thus, the judgment below that determined punishment by applying Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle, considering that the crime of habitual larceny of this case was concurrent crimes with the crime of larceny of which judgment became final and conclusive.

B. Circumstances in which the defendant asserts unreasonable sentencing and the crime of this case are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.