2. Taking into account the circumstances alleged by the Defendant, each of the crimes of this case is that the Defendant steals wire and outdoor equipment connected to the victim D’s outdoor equipment, and that the case is not easy to say that the Defendant’s act of larceny constitutes an act of infringing another’s possession and under his/her factual control, and it does not require any act of transporting or taking out property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 64Do577, Dec. 8, 1964; 2008Do6080, Oct. 23, 2008). According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of larceny, which is 6 months prior to the victim’s office entrance, and that the Defendant had been subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the same period as that of the Defendant, which is 10 years prior to the victim’s office entrance, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the Defendant had been subject to such a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the same Type of larceny.