The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The judgment below

Part of acquittal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit a theft of a mobile phone device, etc. owned by the victim E at the time.

B. According to the prosecutor’s (1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquittal part), S’s statement to the effect that “the check of this case was acquired in gambling,” and W’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant lent money, such as a check, from the Defendant, to gambling,” it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant stolen the check of this case, etc. owned by the victim I.

(2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with respect to Paragraph 2 of the facts charged in the instant case (the guilty part of the judgment of the lower court), which changed the name of the crime into "thief," and the applicable provisions of the law to "Article 329 of the Criminal Act," and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission. As such, the guilty part of

B. In addition, according to the records of this case, the defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for an attempted larceny at the Seoul Central District Court on April 4, 2014 and the same year.

7. On May 3, 2014, the execution of a sentence is premised on the confirmation of the judgment, and the execution of a sentence is not immediately executed. Thus, even if the Defendant was released by the revocation of detention on May 3, 2014, it cannot be said that the execution of a sentence was completed immediately. The execution of a sentence was completed only when the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 12, 2014.

On the same day as the above judgment became final and conclusive, the fact that the execution of the sentence was completed, and the crime (the part of the crime) committed by the defendant in the judgment of the court below can be recognized as being committed on September 7, 2014, which is within three years from then, and thus, the court below should have weighted repeated crimes as provided in Article 35 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court below is clear that it was omitted.