The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

A. On July 18, 2013, the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Gohap156, the Defendant and the claimant for a retrial (hereinafter “Defendant”) were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and embezzlement of stolen objects.

On the other hand, the defendant appealed for the reason that the punishment of the above case is too unreasonable.

B. On October 11, 2013, the Seoul High Court, the appellate court, reversed the judgment of the lower court and sentenced the Defendant to four years of imprisonment (hereinafter “the judgment on review”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 19, 2013.

C. After that, the Defendant filed a petition for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial with this Court 2015 Jaeno97, and this Court rendered a decision of commencing a new trial on May 4, 2015, and thereafter, the said decision of commencing a new trial became final and conclusive as it does not have a legitimate filing of an appeal within the appeal period.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

In this court, the prosecutor filed an application for amendment to a bill of amendment to the indictment with the purport that "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" among the name of the defendant in the name of the crime committed by the defendant is "Habitual larceny" and "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" among the applicable provisions of the Act and "Articles 32 and 329 of the Criminal Act" are "Articles 32 and 329 of the Criminal Act", and since this court permitted this and changed the subject of adjudication, the judgment

4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed on the ground that there is a ground for ex officio reversal of the judgment below under Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.