A. Although the Defendant had been punished several times due to larceny in the past, it was not only a simple larceny, but also there was no same power since 2003. The instant crime is a typical living-type crime, which is not by "the realization of a wall of larceny." Thus, habituality is not recognized.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant made a confession and reflect on the entire criminal acts; (b) the amount of damage as a typical living-type crime is relatively small; (c) the Defendant’s assumptive appearance; (d) the Defendant’s family type, as well as the one-time fine after 2003, did not commit any other crime; and (e) there is no special reason to punish the Defendant faithfully, such as a repeated crime, not only the same power, but also another crime; and (e) there is no reason to punish the Defendant with heavy penalty, such as a repeated crime

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Although the part of "Habitual thief" of larceny was punished several times, the defendant was punished for larceny prior to 10 years, and there was no other charge of larceny from February 2, 2009, which began to commit the crime of this case. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the defendant committed the crime of this case periodically 33 times in total from February 2009 to October 2013, with the same kind of force as the defendant was punished for larceny several times, and ② the defendant committed the crime of this case against the restaurant near the customary market where there is no person who manages the safety device mainly from her own to her new wall, and committed the crime of this case by intrusioning with the lock gate of the restaurant entrance, such as draber, and the time and place of the crime of this case from February 30 to 37: 30 days from February 31, 2013.