A. Since the misapprehension of the legal principle has committed a contingent crime for the livelihood of the Defendant, it is difficult to say that the instant crime was due to the realization of the Defendant’s theft habits.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record on the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, namely, that the Defendant had been punished several times of punishment, including imprisonment for life for larceny (the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life due to larceny, rape, etc. and released after being subject to special amnesty during the execution of the sentence). On July 2, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to four months in prison at the Changwon District Court on July 24, 2014 and committed the instant crime of this case under the same law only seven months after the execution of the sentence was completed on July 24, 2014, it can be sufficiently recognized that the instant crime was attributable to the Defendant’s on the face of the wall of larceny.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable in light of the following circumstances: (a) the instant crime was committed on the part of the Defendant, including the fact that the instant crime was committed in attempted crimes; (b) the Defendant agreed with the victim; (c) the Defendant had been sentenced several times of punishment for the larceny-related crimes; and (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period after the completion of the execution of punishment for the same kind of crime; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime; and (d) the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines (one year to two years), including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines (one year to

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is not reasonable.