The part concerning the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (the first instance court’s punishment: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, and 2 years and 6 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant G1) The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes violates the Constitution on February 26, 2015 in the case of 2014Hun-Ga16, 19, and 23 (Consolidation). Accordingly, the above provision of the Act retroactively loses its effect pursuant to Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act. The judgment of the court of the second instance that applied the above provision of the Act is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. 2) The judgment of the court of the second instance (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) of the court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, Defendant A filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to concurrently deliberate on the appeal case against the judgment of the court below. Each of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A should be sentenced to a single punishment in the relation of a single comprehensive crime. In this regard, the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained.

In addition, the prosecutor changed the name of the defendant A as to the facts charged in the second instance judgment from "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to "Habitual Larceny", and Articles 5-4(1) and 331(2), 30, 342, 331(2), and 35 of the Criminal Act "Article 332, 331(2), and (1), 332, 342, 342, 30, and 35 of the Criminal Act" applied for amendments to the indictment of the second instance judgment. Since this court permitted the amendments, the part of the second instance judgment against the defendant cannot be maintained.

B. The judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant G is ex officio prior to the judgment.