All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

1. The sentencing of the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for August and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for October) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of this court ex officio rendered a concurrent hearing of each appeal against the judgment below. Since each of the offenses of the judgment below is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

The judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in its entirety.

3. 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, and it is again decided after oral argument.

[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting a crime and evidence is as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 330 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 342 and 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, each of which is applicable to the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes is that the defendant does not have the same criminal record even though he had the same criminal record, and committed repeatedly the same crime of larceny, night building intrusion theft, and attempted larceny over several occasions, and the defendant committed the crime of assault in this case where his face is about five times on the sole ground that he was satisfy, and the defendant committed the crime of assault in this case, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes all of the crimes of this case, and the scale of property damage caused by theft, etc. is not so big, shall be considered as favorable to the defendant.