The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted by the Defendant on December 12, 2019, stating that the grounds for appeal, as well as the grounds for appeal, include not only unreasonable sentencing, but also misapprehension of legal principles, etc., on the date of the first trial of the trial, the Defendant and the defense counsel stated

The punishment of the court below (three years of imprisonment) shall be too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant had had a record of having been punished several times for the same type of larceny crime, and was punished eight times among them.

In particular, the Defendant committed the instant thief crime under the same veterinary method as the instant thief because it did not know about the period of repeated crime despite being in existence, and did not go to two months after being released from prison without being aware of it.

These circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected.

Of the instant crimes, the money and valuables that the Defendant stolen were relatively small, due to the instant crime committed on July 9, 2019, and the crime committed on July 10, 2019 was attempted.

In order to raise living expenses after the defendant was released from prison as a previous crime, it seems that the crime of this case was committed.

The victims do not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victims when the defendant was in the past.

These circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

In light of these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is somewhat inappropriate in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of a crime; and (b) the circumstances after the crime were committed.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is with merit.

[Discied Reasons for Judgment] Summary of facts constituting a crime and evidence