The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and one year and six months) of the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

2. On criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor ex officio made an application for changes in indictment with respect to criminal facts as stated in the judgment of the court below, and applied for changes in indictment with respect to which applicable provisions of law are changed to "Article 32 and Article 329 of the Criminal Act", and since this court permitted changes, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 362 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts and evidence recognized by this court is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, except for the alteration of "1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)" to "Habitual larceny".

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is quoted as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 332 of the Criminal Act, Articles 32 and 329 of the Criminal Act, Articles 152 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing is recognized that the defendant had been punished several times due to the same crime, including the punishment and suspended execution, under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (only to the extent that the punishment is more severe than that of the above two crimes) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes. The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, in the case of habitual larceny, the damaged articles were returned to the victims E and G are not wanting to be punished by the defendant, and the age, character, character, environment and environment of the defendant are other.