All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and six months; imprisonment with prison labor for six months) are too unreasonable.

2. The appellate court, ex officio, decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the defendant by the lower court.

Since each crime of the judgment below is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment for which concurrent crimes are aggravated by judgment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, all judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed in entirety, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts constituting a crime and evidence recognized by this court shall be as shown in the corresponding columns of the original judgment.

In accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act, they are quoted as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (the intrusion upon residence, the choice of imprisonment), Article 329 of the Criminal Act (the intention of Section 329, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 342 and 329 of the Criminal Act (the attempted charge of larceny, and the choice of imprisonment);

2. The reason for sentencing of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes against the victim H with the largest punishment) is that the defendant again committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished for the same kind of crime, despite the fact that he/she had served for the same offense, the number of times the instant crime was committed is considerably large, the amount of damage is considerable, and the Defendant stolen property by intrusion upon the victim’s residence. This is because it harms the peace of the victim’s residence, and thus, the form of the relevant crime is considerably inappropriate, and the victim’s damage is restored.