The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. In the trial before remanding, the prosecutor held that: (a) among the facts charged in the instant case, the facts charged are as follows: (b) assault and assault; (c) violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual intrusion); (d) violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual intrusion); and (e) “Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Intrusion)” under the premise that the damaged property was committed with the habit of the same act of violence; (c) violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Intrusion); (d) violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Intrusion); (d) violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Intrusion); (e) violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Intrusion); and (e) violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 1600, Mar. 1, 2006; and (e) violation of Article 6(1) of the Criminal Act (Act No. 1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. 3). of the Criminal Act (Destruction Act).

After that, with respect to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual intrusion of residence), which was modified in the indictment prior to the remand at the trial after the remand, the prosecutor, including the name of the crime, is the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual intrusion). Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Articles 260 (1), 319, and 366 of the Criminal Act, "Article 260 (1), 319 (1), 322, and 366 of the Criminal Act" as "Article 260 (1), 32, and 366 of the Criminal Act."