The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Two district public prosecutor's offices of one unit of seized wall.

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

A. On September 5, 2013, the Defendant and the claimant for a retrial (hereinafter “Defendant”) were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and 6 months and confiscation due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) in the Suwon District Court case 2013Dahap59 (hereinafter “Defendant”).

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

B. On December 13, 2013, the Seoul High Court, the appellate court, reversed the judgment of the lower court, and sentenced the Defendant to four years of imprisonment with prison labor and confiscation (hereinafter “the judgment on review”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 21, 2013.

C. After that, the Defendant filed a petition for a new trial with this Court No. 2015 Jaeno136, and this Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on May 15, 2015, and thereafter, the said decision to commence a new trial became final and conclusive as is, on the grounds that there was no legitimate filing of an appeal within the filing period of an appeal.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant to the punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment and confiscation) 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's name of the crime was stated in the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Articles 329, 330, 331 (1), and 342 of the Criminal Act" and "Articles 332, 329, 330, 331 (1), and 342 of the Criminal Act" and "Article 332, 329, 330, 331 (1), and 342 of the Criminal Act", and since this court's name of the crime was changed by permission, the judgment of the court below

4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, since the above grounds for reversal exist.