The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment) by the lower court (e., two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

The lower court’s respective crimes [the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment Act”)] in its holding

(1) As to the crime of larceny and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Offense of thief), each repeated offender is weighted. Pursuant to the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, each repeated offender is subject to heavy punishment within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments for the crime of thief and the crime of thief under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act. According to Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, the scope of punishment by law was set at one year and six months to twenty-six years.

However, Article 5-4(6) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act stipulate the statutory penalty as imprisonment for not less than three years and not more than twenty-five years. Articles 152 subparag. 1 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act stipulate the statutory penalty as imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine not exceeding three million won. If a repeated crime is aggravated with regard to the above two crimes after choosing imprisonment for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, then the crime of violation of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act is committed for not more than three to fifty years, and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act for not more than two years. If a concurrent crime is committed with regard to the above two crimes, three to fifty years, according to the limitation under the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act, the applicable punishment after discretionary mitigation should be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year and six months to five years.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the application of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act in relation to the aggravation of concurrent crimes, and by determining the scope of punishment by mistake.

3. If so, the court below's decision on the grounds of ex officio reversal is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing. Thus, the court below's decision pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.