The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Attached No. 1 (1 tension).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) A defendant who has not habitually committed any contingent crime due to insufficient living expenses, may not be recognized as a damp wall for the larceny;

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) Stolens which have been omitted from ex officio determination (1) Where the reason for return to the victim is apparent, shall be returned to the victim by judgment (Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Among seized articles to be returned, where the identity of the person to be returned is unknown or his/her whereabouts is unknown, and where such seized articles are likely to be destroyed, damaged, decomposed, or substantially reduced in value, or difficult to keep them may be sold, and the proceeds therefrom may be kept;

(Article 132(2) of the same Act. According to the records, since the bicycle, which was the stolen goods acquired by the defendant due to the second crime, was seized at the time of original adjudication, and the proceeds from the sale of the seized goods are in custody, the above proceeds from sale, which is treated as being legally identical with the seized bicycle (No. 8), shall be returned to the victim as the seized stolen goods. Since the court below omitted this, the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained.

(2) The prosecutor of the amendment of indictment applied for the change of the name of the crime and the applicable provisions of Acts in the trial, and the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained as the case is permitted by the party members.

B. The judgment of the court below on habituality has the grounds of ex officio destruction as seen earlier, but the grounds of appeal as to the habituality of the defendant still meaningful. In light of the following circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed larceny on the face of habitive walls, which facilitate execution or take advantage of the state where the victim's management is inappropriate, and attempted to steals goods.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Do1662 delivered on October 26, 1987, etc.). Accordingly, the defendant's assertion is asserted.