The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, the prosecutor examined the facts charged in the instant case ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the content that the name of the crime in the instant case is "Habitual larceny" from "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "Article 5-4 (1) and Article 329 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act", and since the same is changed by the court's permission,

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of ex officio reversal based on the conclusion of the judgment below, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as that of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, shall be applicable;

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

1. Among concurrent offenders, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act include a majority of criminal records, and accordingly, the defendant has a thief behavior by repeating the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he/she again committed the crime of this case without being aware of it.

However, the fact that the defendant recognizes all of his errors, the total amount of damage is not more than 370,000 won, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim, and the defendant's difficult home circumstances are considered as the grounds for sentencing favorable to the defendant, and the age of the defendant.