2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the mistake of facts, the defendant was found to have brought about the hand, iron, etc., which is the goods of another person, to sell them on the water, opened the locks to find those goods on the water, entered the warehouse, entered the warehouse without permission, and entered the clothing warehouse on the fifth floor of the I building without permission, and then made it impossible to use the clothing normally by putting them into the clothing stuff.

Furthermore, in light of the fact that the Defendant repeatedly committed the same offense in the past three months after having been released from prison on October 18, 2013, the “Habituality” regarding larceny is recognized.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. As to the issue of unfair sentencing, the court below's reasons for multiple negative sentencing as stated in the reasons for the judgment of the court below are as follows: ① the statutory penalty for habitual larceny among the crime of this case is "a life imprisonment or imprisonment for not less than three years" pursuant to Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. The court below, after selecting a limited term of punishment, sentenced the defendant to "ten months of imprisonment" which is less than 1/2 in sequence after lowering the minimum sentence of imprisonment through mitigation of mental and physical disability and discretionary mitigation; ② there is no special change of circumstances that may determine a sentence differently from the judgment of the court below; ② there is no other change of circumstances that could determine the sentence differently from the judgment of the court below; ③ other matters, the age and occupation of the defendant, occupation, home environment, economic aspects, circumstances after the crime, and other various factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. Conclusion.