The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. The following are the circumstances: (a) the Defendant made a confession and reflects all the instant crimes; and (b) the relationship between larceny and the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive by the judgment of the court below, should consider equity with the case to be adjudicated at the same time under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, the Defendant had already been subject to criminal punishment for larceny; in particular, the Defendant was indicted for committing the larceny of the same kind of thief, etc. loaded at the construction site and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year at the Suwon District Court on May 14, 2014. On the other hand, the Defendant continued to commit a part of the instant crime without being able to know at all during the trial of the instant case; the background and content leading up to the instant crime; the method of committing the instant crime; the degree of the relevant crime; the frequency and amount of damage; the Defendant’s age, family environment, conditions before and after the instant crime; and other various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, family circumstances, and the circumstances before and after the crime, are considered as inappropriate.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, the victim's "AD" No. 11 per year on the attached list of crimes attached to the judgment below is "S", and the victim's "a. concurrent treatment" in the application of the law: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act are "1. Handling and mitigation of concurrent crimes: the latter part of Article 37, Articles 39 (1) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act are clearly written errors, and therefore, the victim's "AD" is corrected ex officio under Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure