The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the lower court's sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio judgment.

In the trial of the case, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the name of the defendant as "Habitual larceny" in the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and the applicable provisions of Acts 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.

The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

The judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 332 of the Act on the Punishment of Criminal Crimes, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendant, with the reason for sentencing Article 35 of the Aggravation of Cumulative Offense Act, committed the instant crime of this case under the same number of Acts only for a half year from the date of release on April 19, 2013, even though he/she was habitually punished several times by theft of the personal effects of a criminal suspect, and the amount of damage is approximately three million won.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant under the agreement with the victim, and the defendant is believed to have committed the crime of this case by discovering the victim under the influence of alcohol in the officetel parking lot in which he/she was residing and by contingently, and is specially organized or organized.