1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and November; and

3. A seizure.

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

A. On June 28, 2013, the Defendant and the applicant for a retrial (hereinafter “Defendant”) were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) in the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Gohap192.

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

B. On December 19, 2013, the appellate court, accepted the Defendant’s appeal, reversed the lower judgment, and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment and confiscation (hereinafter “the subject judgment on retrial”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 27, 2013.

C. After that, the Defendant filed a request for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial, and this court rendered a decision of commencing a new trial on August 10, 2015, and thereafter, the said decision of commencing a new trial became final and conclusive as is, on the grounds that there was no legitimate filing of

2. The summary of the reasons for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

The prosecutor stated that the name of the crime is "Habitual larceny" in the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and the applicable provisions of Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes are "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes." However, this appears to be a clerical error in Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes." The prosecutor applied for permission to change the name of crime to "Article 332 of the Criminal Act." Since

4. Accordingly, the court below's decision on the ground of ex officio reversal is based on Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.