The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months for the crimes of Articles 1 through 6 of the judgment.

(1).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the accused (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. (1) Before ex officio determination of the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, the lower court ex officio found the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and the crime of intrusion on the structure by applying Article 5-4(5) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 319(1)

However, Article 5-4 (5) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes applies to a case where a person who has been sentenced not less than three times to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny or attempted crime again commits such crime and punished as a repeated crime, and the crime of Article 7 of the same Act

In other words, according to the records, the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the defendant was committed in May 201

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of larceny and the crime of larceny and the crime of intrusion on structure should be recognized, but the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In addition, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny, etc. at the Busan District Court on November 7, 2012, and that the judgment became final and conclusive on January 1, 2013. Since the crime of Article 7 of the judgment was committed before the above judgment becomes final and conclusive, the above crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes with the above crime for which judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the sentence should be determined after considering equity among the cases where judgment is concurrently rendered and examining whether to reduce or exempt the sentence.