All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three years and four months.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

A. On May 26, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment of innocence (hereinafter “the judgment of the court of first instance”) on the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the case of Ulsan District Court Decision 2009No. 551, 2010 No. 94, Apr. 30, 201) and one year and six months (hereinafter “the judgment of the court of second instance”) on January 15, 2010, to the attempted larceny in the case of No. 2369, the above court of first instance (hereinafter “the judgment of the court of second instance”).

The prosecutor filed an appeal on the ground that there was an error due to mistake of the facts against the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the sentencing of the judgment of the court of second instance is too excessive and unfair.

2) The appellate court reversed the judgment below No. 1 and No. 2 of April 30, 2010 on the ground that the prosecutor’s appeal against the judgment of the court below against the judgment of the court of first instance is well-grounded, and the facts charged with the resolution of the original court No. 1 and No. 2 should be deemed a single crime, and sentenced to two years imprisonment.

The Defendant appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial No. 1, but on July 22, 2010, the judgment dismissing the appeal became final and conclusive.

B. On May 3, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment subject to the second retrial (Seoul District Court Decision 2012No. 274, Jul. 6, 2012) on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the habituality of the larceny in relation to the crime of larceny in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) in the Ulsan District Court 2012 High Order 920 Decided May 3, 2012, and was sentenced to imprisonment for six months (hereinafter “third lower judgment”).

The prosecutor filed each appeal on the ground that the sentencing of the above judgment is too unreasonable because the sentencing of the above judgment is too large, on the grounds that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the judgment of the third court.

2) The appellate court has justified the prosecutor’s appeal.

judgment of 2012.