The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Of the facts charged in this case, the lower order of November 2018.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

On November 25, 2018, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the Seoul Southern District Court on June 29, 1990; (b) one year of imprisonment with prison labor for night intrusion larceny at the Seoul Central District Court on July 4, 2003; (c) two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the Gwangju District Court on April 25, 2013; and (d) one year of imprisonment with prison labor at the Incheon District Court on May 28, 2015; and (e) the period of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Incheon District Court on February 26, 2016.

On November 1, 2018, at around 11:00, the Defendant cut down KRW 700,000,000, in cash inside the bank through the entrance door, which was not corrected on the first floor of the bus terminal near the bus terminal, by an open dog in the Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do.

Judgment

According to Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where the confession of a defendant is an unfavorable evidence against the defendant, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt. Thus, in a case where the defendant is found guilty on the basis of only the confession of the defendant without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there is

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835, Nov. 29, 2007). The evidence of this part of the facts charged lies in the confession and investigation report of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835, Nov. 29, 2007) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835, Nov. 29, 200), which is attached to the confirmation of the facts charged against the defendant. However, the place of damage specified in the above report on damage notification can not be a reinforced evidence for the confession of the defendant as the place of crime that the defendant led to the "AF