2. One-to- the first instance court's decision on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) was made by the Constitutional Court on the following grounds: although the defendant had the same record of several times including the previous convictions, the defendant's family relation, age, occupation, character, environment, circumstances after committing the crime of this case, etc., which are not sufficient enough to use the stolen credit card, etc.; however, even though the defendant did not recover from damage, the defendant's decision on the punishment of this case was made by the Constitutional Court on the corresponding provision of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) which was originally applied, and the defendant was punished as habitual larceny under the light of the above purport of the decision on the unconstitutionality; the court below's decision on the punishment of this case was made by taking into account the circumstances of the crime of this case, the defendant's family relation, occupation, behavior, environment, etc., and all of the sentencing indicated in the records and arguments, the prosecutor's assertion of the judgment below is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition.