The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

One document (No. 1) shall be attached to a seized female wall.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserted misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds for appeal, but all of the above arguments were withdrawn during the second trial of the trial of the court.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio, the Prosecutor changed the term “violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” from among the names of the crimes in the trial of the party branch to “Habitual theft”, withdrawn “Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” among the applicable provisions of the Act, and applied for amendments to the indictment in addition to “Article 332 of the Criminal Act”.

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is modified, and this is a concurrent crime relationship between the embezzlement of stolen objects and the embezzlement of stolen objects under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus,

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

[New reasoning of the judgment of the court below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court are criminal facts and summary of evidence. In addition to the alteration of "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)" in the second and sixth criminal facts of the court below to "Habitual larceny", the judgment of the court below is identical to the corresponding column of the court below, and they are cited as it is

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, and Articles 332, 342, 330, and 329 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Do1184, May 27, 1975) of the Criminal Act concerning the punishment for attempted larceny of habitual night buildings, which are most severe punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Do1184, May 27, 1975).