The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of destruction ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the Daegu District Court on June 19, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 27, 2014.

Since the crime of this case is related to the crime subject to the above final judgment and the crime subject to the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Since the application of the statutes of the lower judgment was omitted, the reason for ex

The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without proceeding to decide on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the judgment is again ruled as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and the evidence admitted by the court in question is as stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, except for the addition of "the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months at the Daegu District Court on June 19, 2014 due to special larceny, etc., and its judgment became final and conclusive on June 27, 2014" to the first head of the facts constituting an offense as indicated in the judgment below, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Handling concurrent crimes and mitigation thereof: the latter part of Article 37, Articles 39 (1) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant had a record of having received juvenile protective disposition several times in the same case, and committed the instant crime.

However, in the trial, the defendant recognized the mistake of the crime of this case, is in depth and reflects it, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim.

The crime of this case is punishable by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months.