The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine the progress of the lower court.

The Defendant filed a petition for a retrial on the ground that there was a decision of unconstitutionality on laws applied to the judgment subject to a retrial [Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Dahap972 Decided September 12, 2014].

Although Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”) applied to the judgment subject to a retrial was not included in the decision of unconstitutionality, the lower court commenced a retrial on the grounds that it constitutes “a final and conclusive judgment of conviction based on the legal provisions determined by the Constitution” under Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act.

A prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the Criminal Act which changes the name of the crime into “Habitual Larceny”, “Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, and Articles 329 and 35 of the Criminal Act” into “Articles 332, 329, and 35 of the Criminal Act,” and the lower court ordered the amendment to the bill of amendment to the Criminal Act, which was approved and tried by the lower court.

B. Furthermore, we examine the reasoning for sentencing of the lower court.

The court below sentenced two years of imprisonment with prison labor (three years of imprisonment) considering the following favorable circumstances: (a) the defendant was subject to criminal punishment on nine occasions due to larceny; (b) the defendant committed a crime again at least eight months after having completed the prison term of punishment; (c) the defendant pretended to acquire stolen goods to demand compensation to the victim; and (d) the defendant sent out and made it difficult for the defendant to pay the case fees; (c) the defendant sent out and made it difficult for him to use the last sentence; (d) the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed in good faith during the construction site after completing the prison term of punishment; (e) the frequency of the crime is limited to one time at the frequency of the crime; (e) the damaged goods have been returned to the victim; and (e) the defendant shows reflective light.

C. However, the lower court’s judgment is as follows.