The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor changed the name of the criminal defendant with respect to the thief crime from "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "Habitual thief", and withdraws "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" in the applicable provisions of this Act and applied for permission to change the bill of indictment as of March 23, 2015, and this court permitted it. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

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

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, Articles 32, 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 152 subparagraph 1 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 152 (1) 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (to select imprisonment with prison labor, comprehensively, with prison labor), the choice of criminal facts

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

1. Among concurrent crimes, the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (up to the period of concurrent crimes, which are determined by the most severe habitual larceny) has already been punished several times by the defendant of the same type of habitual larceny crimes (up to the subject of the instant crime, such as vehicles, vessels, etc.).