All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Items 4, 7 through 7, of seized evidence.

1. Each sentence of the lower court against the accused in the summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor corrected the name of the crime in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) of the first instance judgment as "Habitual larceny", the applicable provisions of the applicable provisions of the law as "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act", and the lower part of the charge as "the Defendant, including this, committed a theft from July 5, 2014 to September 15, 2014, from around 13:30 on July 5, 2014 to around 15, 2014, the victim's wallets and cash were stolen on 28 occasions, such as the list of crimes in attached Form (1) from Seoul and Seocheon-si, and filed an application for permission for changes to the original list of crimes to the list of crimes attached to this judgment

B. In addition, the appellate court decided to consolidate each appellate case of the first and second appellate judgment.

C. However, each crime of the first and second original judgments is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and must be sentenced to a single sentence. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in its entirety.

3. As such, without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower judgment is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the Defendant’s argument is again decided as follows.

[C] The summary of the facts constituting the crime and the evidence admitted by this court and the summary of the evidence are as follows: ① Of the facts constituting the crime of the first instance judgment, the Defendant, including the Defendant, stolen the wall, cash, etc. with a total of 2,040,000 won or more at the market price of 15 times from that time to September 15, 2014 in Seoul and Seocheon-si from that time to that of Seoul and Seocheon-si from that time to September 15, 2014.”