The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that this judgment.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment prosecutor.

A. In the trial of the first instance, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the defendant's name of the crime as "Habitual Special Larceny" from "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and the applicable provisions of the law to "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act". Since this court permitted the change, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant can no longer be maintained.

B. According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapon, etc.) at the Ulsan District Court on November 26, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 4, 2015. As to each of the crimes as stated in the judgment below against the defendant and the above crimes of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapon, etc.) which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court below, in relation to concurrent crimes as defined in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the defendant should be sentenced to punishment for each of the crimes as against the defendant in consideration of equity in the case where the decision is made simultaneously in accordance with the former part of Article 39(1) of the

C. Even though the court below cited (5) a list of crimes related to the defendant's violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving), it failed to specify the crime by omitting the list of crimes.

In addition, the seized stolen property, the reason for return to the victim of which is clear, must be sentenced to return to the victim by judgment (Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office No. 1728 of 2012 is the same.