The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Evidence Nos. 1 through 10 of seized evidence, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the court below rendered a decision of unconstitutionality of Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Articles 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the name of the defendant as "Habitual larceny" from "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "Violation of Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act" to "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act," and since the court changed the subject of the judgment by granting permission, the judgment of the court below becomes

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as follows, without examining the legal principles of the defendant and the assertion of unfair sentencing.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence admitted by the court are as shown 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 Articles of the Criminal Act and Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (or, collectively, the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for repeated crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act has the record of having been punished several times, including punishment for habitual larceny crimes, and the defendant also committed the larceny crime in this case even though he/she is under repeated larceny crimes.