All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

No. 2 of the judgment of the defendant

(a).

The crime shall be sentenced to two months of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing (two months of imprisonment with prison labor and eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below) of the court below (with respect to the crime No. 2 in the judgment of the court below) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance)’s sentencing (two months of imprisonment and the suspension of execution) of the court of first instance is deemed to be too unhued and unfair

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, the judgment of the court below is reversed as follows.

With respect to each of the crimes listed in the decision of the court below in the first and second instance on the amendment of indictment, the prosecutor changed the name of the crime from "thief" to "Habitual larceny", the applicable provisions of Acts to "Article 329 of the Criminal Act" to "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act", and applied for the amendment of the indictment with regard to the larceny as described in paragraph (1) of the crime from among the facts charged below [a judgment which is written differently]. Since this court changed the subject of adjudication by permitting it, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

On the other hand, the prosecutor did not expressly state whether or not to withdraw the prosecution about the intrusion of each room as stated in the judgment of the court below due to the amendment of the indictment in the trial at the trial at the court below. However, this court does not deem that the evaluation of the illegality of intrusion upon residence in the day is included in the constituent elements evaluation under Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act in the case where a person who habitually commits a simple larceny intrudes upon his/her residence in the daytime as a means of larceny. Thus, if a person who habitually commits a robbery under Article 332 of the Criminal Act sustains his/her residence in the daytime as a means of committing the crime, he/she shall be deemed to constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence separate from habitual larceny (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8169, Oct. 15, 2015); since the prosecutor's application for the amendment of the indictment was permitted only for the larceny part.