The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The ex officio determination prosecutor applied for changes in indictment to the effect that "Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is deleted" among the applicable provisions of the indictment as stated in the indictment, and the court permitted it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the defendant cannot be maintained as it is changed.

3. In conclusion, 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, and the judgment below is again ruled 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. Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts and Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months from six months to twenty-five years;

2. The scope of recommended sentences based on the sentencing guidelines (decision of types of punishment), the scope of punishment for larceny, habitual larceny, and repeated larceny, and the absence of types 1 (general and repeated larceny) (decision of the recommended area) [decision of the recommended area] basic areas [the scope of punishment] from two years to four years.

3. Although the Defendant had been sentenced several times for the same crime, the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime within the repeated crime period, the number of the Defendant’s crimes and the amount of damage did not take any particular measure for the recovery of victims’ damage, etc. are the sentencing condition unfavorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, in the case of the defendant's confession and reflects his crime, and 5 million won check among the damaged goods, the victim is the victim.