The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes to the meaning of "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" as "Habitual thief", "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Article 329 of the Criminal Act" as "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act", prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's argument on the ground that the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 332 and Article 329 of the Criminal Act regarding the relevant criminal facts and Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act for the selection of punishment are as follows: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant deposited KRW 1,545,00 for the victim I in the trial; and (c) the Defendant led to economic difficulties to the instant crime.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant habitually by destroying another's residence glass, and thus, the nature of the crime was very poor, and the defendant has a record of having been sentenced to a similar crime in the past, and it was comprehensively examined the various circumstances that constitute the conditions for sentencing, including the age, happiness environment, etc. of the defendant, and determined the punishment as ordered.