1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years;

3.Provided, That this judgment has become final and conclusive.

1. On December 10, 2014, when a prosecutor filed an appeal against the lower judgment on December 10, 2014, the prosecutor’s judgment on the appeal by the public prosecutor only stated “the entire amount” and “the grounds for appeal” in the “total amount” column of the petition of appeal and “the grounds for appeal,” and did not state specific grounds for appeal. On December 18, 2014, the written notification of the receipt of notification of the reception of notification was served and submitted only on January 12, 2015.

Article 361-5 subparag. 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "when there exists any ground to acknowledge that the determination of punishment is unreasonable," and Article 155 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure provides that "the reason for appeal or the reply shall clearly state the reason for appeal or the contents of the reply in detail," it cannot be deemed that the above entry in the petition of appeal is a legitimate reason for appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8117, Jan. 31, 2008). Thus, there is no other ground to ex officio investigation in the judgment below.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal shall be dismissed by decision pursuant to Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court below is reversed in whole, the prosecutor's appeal is not dismissed

2. Judgment on the appeal by the defendant

A. On August 20, 2014, the summary of the grounds of appeal 1) 1, 2014, the Defendant had no intention to commit theft since the Defendant had no choice but to take the part of the Defendant, depending on the victim I’s identity.

B) On September 7, 2014, the Defendant purchased a victim L’s bicycle from a high water surface, and there is no fact that the Defendant stolen the victim’s bicycle, and there is no fact that the Defendant damaged the victim’s N office entrance.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unlimited.