The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

one certificate of the child of Colombia, seized No. 37;

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

[Defendant was decided by the Constitutional Court (Supreme Court Order 2014HunGa16 Decided February 26, 2015) that “the part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act” in Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Act”) is a violation of the Constitution, and thus Defendant is a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) (hereinafter “Special Crimes”).

(2) The Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da4488 decided July 20, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Supreme Court Decision 2015Da14479 decided July 20, 2012) (hereinafter referred to as the “Supreme Court Decision 201Da1549 decided July 20, 2012) (hereinafter referred to as the “Supreme Court Decision 201Da1234 decided July 20, 201).

(A) After commencing a new review, the Court stated that the lower court’s judgment that applied “Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Special Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act” with respect to habitual larceny as in the judgment subject to a new trial on the ground that the effect of the Constitutional Court’s decision on unconstitutionality does not extend to Article 5-4(6) of the Special Act upon the commencement of a new trial is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine

2. The ex officio determination prosecutor changed "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" from among the names of the crimes against the defendant to "Habitual larceny", and applied for changes in the contents of "Article 5-4(6) and (1) and Article 329 of the Criminal Act" from among applicable provisions of law to "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act", and this court permitted this.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the defendant was changed in the subject of the judgment and became no longer able to maintain it.

3. Accordingly, without considering the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not necessary.