The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

one (Evidence No. 2) shall be seized.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which applies to the instant crime, has been rendered a decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, and the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

In the trial of the court of the ex officio judgment, the prosecutor applied for amendments to a bill of amendment with the content that the name of the crime against the defendant is "Habitual thief" from "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "Habitual thief", and the applicable provisions of Acts to "Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" to "Articles 32, 329, 330, 331(1) and 342 of the Criminal Act" to "Articles 332, 329, 330, 331(1) and 342 of the Criminal Act". The court

3. Accordingly, 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, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the court is the same as the corresponding column 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 and Articles 332, 329, 330, 331 (1), and 342 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. It is advantageous to the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the defendant in the reason of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, and that some victims do not wish to punish the defendant, and that the defendant was detained for about one year and three months or more, and the defendant showed the time to reflect.

However, even though the defendant had been punished several times due to the same crime, he/she also reaches the crime of this case, the victim is a majority and the damage is caused.