The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, even if the statutory penalty for special larceny of this case is mitigated to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years, the lower court sentenced the Defendant to a four-month punishment, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. When there is a concurrent crime (Article 37 of the Criminal Act) with a crime for which a judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles and a crime committed before the final judgment has become final and conclusive (Article 37 of the Criminal Act), and where there is a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes, punishment shall be imposed at the same time in consideration of equity

(Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. The lower court determined that each of the instant offenses and the Defendant’s special larceny, which became final on July 31, 2010, constituted ex post concurrent crimes as above, and reduced the sentence, and again, mitigated the sentence pursuant to Article 53 of the Criminal Act by taking account of the favorable circumstances in favor of the Defendant. When mitigated imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor, it shall be limited to 1/2 of the term of the punishment, and if there are several legal grounds for mitigation, it may be repeatedly mitigated (Article 5(1)3 and (2) of the Criminal Act), so the lower court’s punishment may be reduced by imprisonment with prison labor for three months, and the lower court cannot be said to have sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor beyond the scope of the punishment.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below on August 29, 2003, the defendant is specially larceny at the Seoul District Court on August 29, 2003.