The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the original court’s punishment (one and half years of imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum term of one year and six months, and one year of short term) is too unreasonable;

2. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant was ex officio examined on April 3, 1994, and the Defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the judgment of the court below, but it is apparent that the Defendant has reached the age of majority in this court. As such, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the Defendant to mitigation of juvenile offenses and

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Articles 331 (2) and (1), and 342 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. In the case of the Defendant’s decision on the sentence of sentence under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (i.e., the fact that the Defendant recognized the mistake of the Defendant, and the victims agreed with the victims) of the Act on Discretionary Mitigation, the lower limit of the punishment subject to discretionary mitigation is one year and six months, and the Defendant cannot be sentenced to a more unfavorable sentence than one year, among the lower court’s punishment sentenced to the Defendant under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in the instant case in which only the Defendant appealed, and thus, the sentence cannot be sentenced to a more unfavorable sentence than one year, among the lower court’s punishment. Thus,