The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Seized evidence 1 to 8 shall be confiscated.

According to the progress records of the case, the following facts are recognized:

A. The Defendant was prosecuted for committing a thief violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the lower court sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment and confiscation, and the Defendant appealed against the lower judgment.

B. On November 15, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the court below on the ground that some of the facts charged were modified due to the embezzlement of stolen objects, and sentenced the defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for three years and confiscation by applying Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act to the criminal facts against the defendant. The above judgment became final and conclusive on November 23, 2013.

C. On February 26, 2015, the Constitutional Court decided on February 26, 2014Hun-Ga16, 23 (merged), which became final and conclusive after the judgment subject to a retrial, that Article 329 of the Criminal Act is unconstitutional.

On September 4, 2015, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial based on the provision of the law that the Constitutional Court decided to have unconstitutionality, and decided that there was a ground for retrial under the main text of Article 47(3) and (4) of the Constitutional Court Act. The above decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. There is no fact that the defendant was stolen in relation to the No. 2 and No. 9 of the crime sight table attached to the judgment of the court below in mistake of facts

However, only one copy of a membership card under No. 2 was acquired.

B. Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which applies to the crime of this case of unfair sentencing, was rendered a decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, and the sentence of imprisonment (three years of imprisonment and confiscation) of the lower court is too unreasonable

Judgment ex officio

A. In the trial of the party, the prosecutor charged the facts charged in the [Attachment 4] No. 4 among the facts charged in the instant case.