The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Two pandes (No. 3), five female knife.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the two-year imprisonment sentenced by the court below is too uneasy, in light of the fact that the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime up to four times, that is, the crime during the repeated crime period, and that there is no effort to recover from damage, etc.

Before determining the grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor, the public prosecutor applied for changes in indictment which adds Article 329 of the Criminal Act to the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act to the defendant in the trial court, and this court's permission was changed, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Therefore, the court below's decision is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the grounds for ex officio reversal, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence against the defendant are as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 332, 329, and 330 of the Criminal Act, inclusive of relevant provisions regarding criminal facts [the crimes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of Crimes constitute habitual larceny and habitual night building intrusion larceny listed in Tables 3 through 9 of Crimes; however, in such a case, the crimes constitute habitual night building intrusion larceny listed in Articles 332, 329, and 330 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 79Do2371, Dec. 11, 1979).

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. It seems that there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant, on the other hand, considering the following: (a) the fact that the Defendant was punished four times as a thief, such as the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor’s reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act; (b) the crime of this case was committed during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime; and (c) the frequency of the crime reaches nine times; (b) on the other hand, the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the crime; and (c) the family and family members live