The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

A. On September 26, 2014, the Defendant and the applicant for a retrial (hereinafter “Defendant”) were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) by the Seoul Northern District Court.

B. On December 24, 2014, the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed, and this Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and sentenced the Defendant to a three-year imprisonment (Seoul High Court 2014No3040; hereinafter “Seoul High Court Decision”) and appealed against this.

C. On March 26, 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do771) and finally became final and conclusive.

On August 16, 2016, upon the defendant's request for retrial, this Court rendered a decision of commencing a retrial on August 16, 2016, and the above decision of commencing a retrial became final and conclusive as it did not have a legitimate filing of appeal within

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical disability by drinking and drinking alcohol under the condition that he had a symptoms of alcohol alcohol, at the time of the instant crime, and was in a state of mental and physical disability. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

3. Determination

A. Upon ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal to amend a bill of indictment, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment to the effect that the name of the defendant is "Habitual larceny" from "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Article 329 of the Criminal Act" are changed to "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act", and the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the case

However, the judgment of the court below has such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even the defendant's assertion of mental disability.