The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, according to the evidence, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny at the Seoul Eastern District Court on February 16, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 24, 2016. The crime of assault against the Defendant is in the concurrent relation between habitual larceny for which the judgment became final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of assault against the Defendant is in the concurrent relation between the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the case of equity under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further in this respect.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

[C] The summary of the facts constituting a crime and evidence admitted by this court is the first head of the judgment of the court below. "The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny at the Seoul Eastern District Court on February 16, 2016 and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 24, 2016." Except for addition of "1. Supreme Court Decision: Court Decision and case inquiry" to the summary of the evidence, since it is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act dealing with concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with regard to the sentencing of the instant crime is the same as the Defendant, even if it is considered that the instant crime has concurrent crimes with the crime of habitual larceny as indicated in the judgment of the court below.