All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment of the lower court (the first judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and the second judgment: the fine: 700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where it is found that a part of the facts constituting a blanket crime was prosecuted first for a simple single crime, and the remaining facts constituting an inclusive crime after being charged with an additional crime, the purport of applying for punishment of all the facts constituting an inclusive crime committed before and after the additional indictment can be deemed to include the purpose of applying for punishment of all the facts constituting an inclusive crime. Thus, in a case where it is evident that the submission of an additional indictment by the order of the public prosecutor was not made duplicate public prosecution against one of the crimes, if it is evident that the additional indictment submitted by the order of the public prosecutor was not filed in duplicate public prosecution, it shall be deemed that the amendment of indictment was made by the additional indictment, and all the facts constituting an offense prosecuted before and after the additional indictment shall

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do1698 delivered on October 11, 1996). The crime of the second judgment is part of the act constituting habitual larceny of the first judgment, which is a single comprehensive crime, in light of the day of the crime, the method of the crime, and the criminal records of the defendant's same criminal records. The prosecutor also requested the amendment of the indictment to add the criminal facts of the second judgment to the criminal facts of habitual larceny of the first judgment. The second judgment of the second judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a single sentence in relation to the crime of habitual larceny of the first judgment of the court of the court of the court of the court of the first instance, and thus, each of the above judgment of the court below cannot be exempt from all reversal.

3. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment did not decide on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing on the grounds of ex officio reversal, and pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.