The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The judgment below

(b) before pronouncement.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal - The punishment of an unreasonable sentencing (one and half years of imprisonment with prison labor, a short term of one year and six months, and a short term of one year) of the original judgment is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining on the grounds of appeal by the defendant, the crime of larceny in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of this case constitutes imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than three years under Article 5-4 (1) of the same Act. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as it did not select a sentence among them, sentenced juvenile offenders to mitigation, discretionary mitigation and imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and six months or a short term of one year

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed 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 as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the same Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 329, 330 and 342 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Article 2 and Article 60 (2) of the Juvenile Act, Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Articles 2 and 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act, which are illegal;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 57 of the Criminal Act, including the number of days of pre-trial detention, was that the Defendant committed the crime of larceny, quasi-Robbery, etc. only in 2007, and committed the crime of habitual larceny in the instant case, even though there was a record of two-time measures to forward juvenile protection case, and again, committed the crime of habitual larceny

Although the defendant's age is 18 years old, he/she has recovered from the law-abiding consciousness.