The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The punishment of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the accused against the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable;

In addition to the statement of grounds for appeal submitted by the defendant, it is also indicated in the grounds for appeal as well as the grounds for appeal. However, in light of the health condition of the defendant, who can be identified by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the circumstance and attitude of the crime of this case, etc., it does not seem that the defendant was in a state that he/she does not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the crime). 2. Article 5-4 (5) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 13717, Jan. 6, 2016) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 1371, Jan. 6, 2016), Article 329 through 336, 340 and 362 of the Criminal Act, or the attempt thereof, where a person who has been sentenced more than three times for a repeated crime again committed, unlike Article 5-4 (5) of the current Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

On the other hand, Article 8 of the Criminal Code provides that "the general provisions of this Act shall apply to the crimes provided by other Acts and subordinate statutes, except as provided otherwise by such Acts and subordinate statutes."

Article 5-4 (5) of the current Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes separates the punishment to be imposed according to the attitude of larceny crimes, and is different from the former Act.