The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair punishment)’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged in light of the following: (a) the lower court found the Defendant guilty on April 27, 2014 of the instant facts charged; (b) on the grounds that CCTV images that seem to correspond thereto are insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged; (c) however, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the following grounds: (a) the date and place of the crime on April 28, 2014 and May 12, 2014; and (d) the date and place of the crime on April 27, 2014; (b) the date and place of the crime on April 27, 2014, are very closely adjacent to the date and place of the crime; and (c) the name of the offender on April 27, 2014, which belongs to the Defendant’s name and the video photograph, and thus, (d) the lower court erred by misapprehending the factual basis.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment to "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Article 329 of the Criminal Act" and "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act" in the applicable provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, the name of the crime was "Habitual larceny" from "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes".

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts against the above facts charged by the court is still subject to the judgment of this court, so I will examine this.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the record, i.e., the prosecutor’s assertion that the defendant denied the crime, and the date and time of the crime committed on April 27, 2014, which the court below acquitted, is the defendant.