The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, Article 35(1) of the Criminal Act provides that “A person who was sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment and commits a crime equivalent to or greater than imprisonment without prison labor within three years after the execution thereof is completed or exempted, shall be punished as a repeated offense.”

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was released on May 9, 201 and the parole period expired on October 24, 201, while he was sentenced to three years for special robbery, embezzlement of occupied objects, theft, fabrication of private documents, uttering of private documents, forgery of private signature, and uttering of private signature at the Seoul Western District Court on February 12, 2009.

However, among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, that the defendant stolen only one of the victim K-owned Samsung mobile phones on December 31, 2013 (2016Kadan4033) constitutes a case where the defendant committed a crime corresponding to imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment within three years from the time when the execution of imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment was completed. However, the court below erred in the judgment below, since the defendant omitted a repeated offense against larceny on December 31, 2013, and thus, the judgment below is unlawful.

Therefore, as long as the lower court rendered a single punishment by dealing with larceny and other crimes committed on December 31, 2013, which were erroneous in the application of the aforementioned statutes, as a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower court was unable to maintain the entire judgment.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant and his defense counsel's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed in its entirety and it is again decided as follows.

[Discrimined Judgment] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court are criminal facts of the defendant and the same.