All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and one month.

A number of seized COACH sludges.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, this Court tried to hold the two cases of appeal by the defendant together with the two cases of appeal by the defendant. Each of the two cases of concurrent trial by the court below is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment imposed for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that the above reasons for reversal of authority exist, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is identical to 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 329 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment determined for larceny against victim B who is the largest offense)

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the return of victims are favorable circumstances such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake and reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant’s failure to repeat the crime; and (c) there are no criminal records of the same kind or suspension of execution

On the other hand, the frequency of the larceny crime of this case has reached about 45 times, and the total amount of damages therefrom has reached about 17 million won, and the defendant continued to repeat the crime without opening it while being investigated.