The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months and by a fine of 150,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment, and a fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio of the reversal, and according to the statements and records made by the defendant in this court, the defendant is recognized as deaf-mute.

Nevertheless, since the court below did not reduce the deaf-mute while applying the statutes, there are reasons for ex officio destruction.

The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without proceeding to decide on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, and the judgment is again ruled as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by this court is as follows: the first head of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, in addition to adding "the defendant is a deaf-mute with hearing impairment (class II)," and is the same as the statement in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below; therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 369

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 5-4 (5) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 154 subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes concerning the crime;

1. The proviso to Article 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders;

1. Article 11 and Article 55 (1) 3 and 6 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of deaf-mutes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 3 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the Return of Victims;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order reflects the defendant's intention to commit a crime and wrong.

The degree of damage caused by the instant crime is minor, and the victim F and only agreed with the victim F.

However, even though the defendant has been sentenced three times to larceny due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, he committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime.

(2).