The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

The defendant's brief appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant filed a petition for summary final appeal against the lower judgment on July 13, 2018. However, the summary of the grounds for final appeal by the Prosecutor on July 16, 2018, the Prosecutor, who is the other party, lost its validity as a result of the appeal filed on July 16, 2018, and in such a case, the effect as an appeal is not recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 71Do28, Feb. 9, 1971). 2. The Defendant’s summary of the grounds for final appeal by the Prosecutor on February 9, 1971, which the lower court sentenced against the Defendant, is unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

In the event that habitual larceny and habitual intrusion on a structure at night are committed, only one crime is established by combining the most severe habitual night structure intrusion larceny (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do1184, May 27, 1975, etc.). For the foregoing reason, in a case where habitual night structure intrusion larceny is committed for the purpose of larceny, there is a substantive competition relation with the crime of intrusion on residence in the night.

In recognition of punishment, there is no choice to impose more severe punishment than the case of habitual intrusion larceny on a structure at night, and thus the balance is inconsistent. Therefore, it should be determined that only one crime is established by comprehensively taking into account the intrusion of a structure at night, and the crime of intrusion upon a structure at night is established.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of habitual larceny, attempted intrusion into a structure at night, and intrusion into a structure at night, and found that the attempted habitual larceny, including habitual larceny, and the crime of intrusion into a structure at night and the crime of intrusion into a structure at night, are concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Based on the judgment of the court, the punishment against the defendant was imposed by aggravated concurrent crimes, and this illegality affected the judgment, so the court below is no longer able to maintain it.

4. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground that there is a ground for reversal ex officio.