In full view of the fact that the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny and completed the execution of the sentence on April 17, 2005, the period of recidivism is shorter than nine times, and that two times of the period of larceny was sentenced to punishment for habitual larceny. From around 1999, larceny is identical to that of the instant crime, larceny is also similar to that of the instant crime, around around 2003 and around 2004, and it appears that the instant crime was planned in light of the place of the crime, even though the Defendant was recognized as habituality, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the fact.

2. Determination

Habitual larceny provided for in Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes refers to cases where a person who has a habit of larceny committed by committing the larceny on the following grounds: (a) has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a limited time; (b) the method, method, and nature of the larceny are identical to those of the larceny; and (c) the crime is committed under contingent motive or imminent economic circumstances; (d) if it is not deemed that it is damp, it can not be said that the criminal records, investigation reports (at the end of the punishment); and (e) the criminal defendant appears to have been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 0 days from October 1968 to July 1, 200; and (e) the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 10 days on the following grounds: (c) the defendant was found to have been subject to punishment for larceny; and (d) the defendant was found to have been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of larceny on the following grounds: (e.g.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Won-su(Presiding Judge)