1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and four months;

3. The seizure of articles 1 and 2 shall be confiscated;

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) shall be excessively unreasonable.

2. The ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application with the court for permission to change the name of the defendant to "Habitual Larceny" from "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Articles 329, 342, and 331 (2) of the Criminal Act" and "Articles 332, 329, 342, and 331 (2) of the Criminal Act," and the court permitted this.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it was changed.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is as follows. Except for the following: (a) 6 and 7 of the judgment of the court below, the summary of the facts charged and the evidence was changed from the time to July 17, 2014 to the following facts: (b) 6 and 7 of the judgment of the court below, “it was habitually stolen the assets of the victims, as shown in No. 1 to 10 of the annexed crime sight table No. 1 to July 17, 2014; and (c) habitually carried lethal weapons and attempted to steals the assets of the victims, such as the list No. 11 of the annexed crime sight table No.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles 332, 329, 342, and 331(2) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts (generally, the statutory penalty for attempted habitual special larceny is the most severe, and only one crime is established by comprehensively covering all of the crimes of habitual larceny (Supreme Court Decision 75Do1184 Decided May 27, 1975)

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is confessions and reflects by the defendant, and the defendant is both victims.