The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant, the grounds of appeal are examined ex officio in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied the applicable law to the name of the crime against the defendant as "Habitual larceny", and applied law to "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act" and "Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act" respectively, and the court granted permission.

As such, the subject of the judgment of the court below was changed in the first instance, and the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. Therefore, the court below's decision is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 332, 329 (a comprehensive larceny), 347(1) (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 70(1)3 (a use of stolen credit cards) of the Act on Specialized Credit Business, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act for aggravated repeated crimes;

1. The rationale for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Concurrent Crimes lies in the defendant’s attitude against the defendant, and the fact that approximately 4,380,000 won in cash were returned to the victimO and part of the damage was recovered is favorable.

However, the crime of this case is habitually committed at the public bath over six times.