The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

There is no fact that there is no theft of another object like the facts stated in the judgment of the court below.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

Article 5-4 (5) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment for a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act, or the attempts thereof, is punished as a repeated crime by committing such crime, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years but not more than 20 years. The purport of the above provision is that, in cases where the criminal power and the requirements for aggravation of repeated crimes are met, punishment shall be imposed in accordance with the prescribed statutory penalty. Thus, once again, the punishment shall be prescribed within the scope of

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1391, Sept. 27, 1994). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s criminal record, which served as the reason for aggravation of repeated crimes, but did not add weight to repeated crimes in determining the punishment against the Defendant. In this regard, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

According to the following facts and circumstances recognized by the court below's judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be recognized as having stolen the task, etc. as stated in the judgment of the court below and committed an attempted crime.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

Before committing the instant crime, the Defendant returned to the E market (hereinafter referred to as the “E market”) and had become a problem by committing larceny.

For this reason, merchants of E market shall raise the defendant's identity.