The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. In light of the fact that the defendant is against the gist of the grounds for appeal, the punishment imposed by the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In the trial of the competent court, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to change the term "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" among the names of the crimes against the defendant as "Habitual larceny", and Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act" in the relevant part of the applicable provisions of the Act into "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without a need to decide on the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are as stated in each 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 Article 332 of the Criminal Act, Articles 32 and 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of habitual larceny), the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Among concurrent crimes, the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (only to the extent that the punishment is aggregated with the long-term punishment of the above two crimes) is recognized and contradictory to all of the crimes in this case, the frequency of the crimes in this case and the amount of damage suffered by the victims are favorable to the defendant.

However, the defendant has been punished for imprisonment three times due to theft, and the defendant is not aware of the fact that he was in the period of repeated crime due to the same crime.