The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor asserts that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on habituality, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although each of the crimes of this case can be seen as the origin of larceny.

B. The prosecutor asserts that the court below’s sentence (three years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, and probation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle is that habituality refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny in the course of larceny, and the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime in the same case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of such criminal records (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). In order to recognize habituality, it is several criminal records for larceny, and the means, method and nature thereof are identical, and the crime is deemed identical, and the crime is committed under contingent motive or critical economic circumstances, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a habitual larceny if it cannot be deemed that the crime was committed under any contingent motive or critical economic condition.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do35, 84Do3, Mar. 13, 1984). Based on the premise that the crime of this case was committed nine times, the mere fact that the crime of this case was committed nine times in light of the records of punishment for larceny, similarity with each of the crimes of this case, circumstances leading the defendant to commit each of the crimes of this case, and the defendant's age, growth environment, and motive for committing the crime of this case is difficult to readily conclude that it was caused by the realization of the defendant's theft habits, and the court below's measures are justified.

Therefore, we cannot accept the prosecutor's argument of law.

B. The Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is three months.