The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applies habitually to cases where a person who has been sentenced two or more times to a punishment due to the crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, the attempts thereof, etc. has been completely executed or exempted and habitually commits the crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, or the attempts thereof, etc. within three years after the completion or exemption of the execution of the sentence sentenced to habitual larceny.

However, there is no fact that Defendant A was sentenced two or more times to habitually larceny crimes, and thus, Article 5-4(6) of the above Act cannot be applied.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that applied Article 5-4 (6) of the above Act to Defendant A is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A’s ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the prosecutor applied the applicable provisions to the facts charged by Defendant A with respect to the facts charged by Defendant A, which read “Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 331(2), 331(1), and 35 of the Criminal Act” as “Article 5-4(5)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 331(2), and 35 of the Criminal Act,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against Defendant A could not be maintained as it is (the Defendant’s argument of misunderstanding the legal doctrine is unnecessary to determine the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine because the indictment was modified according to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine). The judgment below regarding Defendant B’s assertion is a planned and systematic larceny crime (joint larceny with Defendant A and Defendant C jointly with the lower court’s judgment).