The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of the special larceny of this case, the lower limit of statutory penalty is one year, and even when statutory mitigation and mitigation are made, the lower limit of the punishment is three months, and the lower court sentenced two months to imprisonment with labor below the lower limit of the punishment. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of the punishment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below is that the special larceny of this case is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years, but the court below sentenced two months to imprisonment with prison labor less than the minimum statutory punishment without statutory mitigation or discretionary mitigation under the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the scope of punishment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the prosecutor's allegation in this part is with merit.

Furthermore, even if the lower court’s application of the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and omission of entry in discretionary mitigation under Article 53 of the Criminal Act is a simple clerical error, when reducing punishment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “former concurrent crimes”), when reducing punishment pursuant to Article 55(1) of the Criminal Act with respect to statutory mitigation, it cannot be mitigated to less than 1/2 of the term of punishment (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Do14609, Apr. 18, 2019). In so doing, even if mitigation and discretionary mitigation of latter concurrent crimes with respect to special larceny, the lower limit of the term of punishment is three months, and thus, the lower judgment that sentenced to a lower limit of the term of punishment than the latter concurrent crimes cannot be maintained any further in this respect.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal without examining the argument of unfair sentencing is in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.