All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Seized evidence 9 to 9.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of committing each crime as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court of the first instance on the basis of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (the first instance court's decision: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, 2 years of probation for 3 years of probation, 1 year of probation, and 2 years of damage) and each sentence sentenced by the second instance court (the first instance court's decision: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, 3 years of probation for 2 years) are too unf

2. Judgment ex officio (joint hearings and changes in indictment);

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the defendant, ex officio, filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance; the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance; and the court of second instance decided to hold two appeals jointly. Each of the crimes of the court of first and second instance is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one of the crimes of the court of second instance shall be sentenced within the scope of one punishment imposed under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. The prosecutor changed the facts charged by the court of second instance to the court of second instance as follows. Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the name of the crime, as "Habitual larceny"; Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the applicable provisions of the relevant part, as "Article 332 of the Criminal Act"; since the court of first and second instance changed it.

B. The revised charge was committed by the Defendant habitually, around April 9, 2014, and around 23:00 on April 9, 2014, when he intrudes into the Victim G house located in F, and carrying 300,000,000 won of the market value of the victim’s possession at the entrance of the entrance of the building at the entrance of the entrance of the building, and thereby, steals the victims’ property at least 16 times in total by August 10, 2014, as indicated in the list of crimes.