All parts of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant’s imprisonment, five years and six months and fine, 300.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the second original judgment (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the defendant (Appeal against the second original judgment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (Appeal against the first instance judgment) 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (with respect to the acquittal portion), the Defendant had been in action to open and intrude the front door with the tool called “defluence” (hereinafter “defluence”), and when opening the front door, he could immediately enter the victim’s residence. As long as the Defendant’s intent to steal another’s residence through the above method of crime was revealed externally, even if the case was closed prior to physical color, the Defendant’s act should be deemed as “an act closely related to infringing another’s defluence” and thus, the Defendant’s attempted larceny should be recognized by deeming that the Defendant’s imprisonment (five years and fine KRW 300,000) sentenced to the first instance judgment of unfair sentencing (hereinafter “defluence”) is too unfluened and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor prior to the determination of ex officio.

First, this Court decided to concurrently examine each appeal case against the first and second original judgments. The first and second original judgments against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of the second original judgment against the defendant is one of concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced within the scope of a limited term of punishment under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, both the first and second original judgments cannot be exempt from reversal.

Next, the prosecutor habitually steals property or property equivalent to 106,746,000 won in total over 39 times from October 19, 2012 to June 24, 2013, which was subject to the judgment of the first instance court at the trial.