The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Victims of Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, shall be victims.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's authority, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the court, the prosecutor applied for permission to change the name of the crime to "Habitual larceny" and the applicable provisions of law to "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act", and the subject of the judgment by the court was changed by permitting it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, 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 the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts constituting a crime and summary of evidence, and thus, the summary of evidence is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance

Application of Statutes

1. Article 332 of the relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Articles 332 and 329 of the multiple-choice Act concerning the criminal facts;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Articles 10 (2) and (1) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to be legally mitigated (a person of mental disability due to a personality and behavior disorder, etc.);

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the victim’s restitution are as follows: (a) recognizing and reflecting each of the crimes in this case; and (b) deemed to have committed each of the crimes in this case for the purpose of living due to economic difficulties; and

On the other hand, the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed repeatedly since the execution of imprisonment was completed for the same kind of crime as well as several times, and that the defendant did not make almost efforts to recover from damage is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc.