2. Defendant A had eight criminal records of the same thief, and among them, seven criminal records of the same thief, and Defendant B had five criminal records of the same thief, and even three criminal records of the same thief, the Defendants cannot be sentenced to criminal punishment of the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants repeatedly committed the crime of habitual thief.

However, in the case of the crime of habitual larceny of this case, the statutory punishment is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than three years pursuant to Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, even if discretionary mitigation is made in consideration of the favorable circumstances of the Defendants, the lower sentence was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months, and the Defendants had already been sentenced to the lower court. In full view of the various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, including the age, happiness and family environment of the Defendants, the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the Defendants agreed with the victims of the crime of habitual larceny of this case at the trial, and the Defendants deposited KRW 200,000 for the victims, etc., which are favorable to the Defendants.

Even if the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted in its entirety.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.