The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination: (a) the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment with the content that the criminal name among the facts charged against the defendant is "Habitual larceny" from "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes"; (b) the applicable provisions of the Act to "Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" and "Articles 32 and 329 of the Criminal Act"; and (c) since this court permitted the amendment, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer.

3. If so, 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 it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the evidence and the facts charged against the defendant recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment below, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (generality of imprisonment and choice of imprisonment);

1. A repeated crime committed several times as a thief under Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes. In particular, on February 11, 2010, the court was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and was released on August 12, 201 during the execution of the sentence in Incheon Detention House on parole on December 14, 2011, and repeatedly committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime after the parole period expired on December 14, 2011; the damage was not recovered at all; other unfavorable circumstances, on the other hand, the Defendant was led to the confession of and against all of the instant crimes; and the amount of damage was not significant.