A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

one small cutting machine (No. 20) seized;

A. In determining the statutory penalty for habitual special larceny against the defendant, the lower court considered that the punishment for habitual larceny was one year and six months by adding half to the maximum punishment for special larceny as well as the maximum punishment for the crime of habitual larceny.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the aggravation of punishment for habitual special larceny, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, Article 332 of the Criminal Act provides that “A person who habitually commits the crimes under Articles 329 through 331-2 shall be punished by aggravating the penalty by up to one half of the penalty stipulated in the penalty.

Article 329 through 331-2 of the Criminal Act provides that "The statutory penalty of imprisonment shall be stipulated in a short and long term manner."

Article 332 of the Criminal Code provides that "The method of such aggravated provision shall be aggravated to twice the maximum term of the punishment prescribed for such crime" in Article 35 (2) of the Criminal Code concerning the aggravation of repeated crimes.

It is clearly distinguishable from “the method prescribed in this section.”

In full view of these points, Article 332 of the Criminal Code increases not only the statutory penalty prescribed in Articles 329 through 331-2 of the Criminal Code, but also up to one half of the short term.

It is reasonable to see that it is reasonable.

Therefore, the decision of the court below which increased by one half of the short-term period under Article 331 (1) of the Criminal Act is just, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the crime of larcenying money and valuables is very heavy in the nature of the crime, where the defendant, who has habitual nature of larceny, intrudes on his residence at night by destroying the crime prevention windows, or by opening open windows, etc.

In addition, even though the defendant had been sentenced several times of punishment for the same crime, he again committed the crime within the period of repeated crime, which became known one year after the execution of the last sentence was completed.

Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to severe punishment.