All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 did not commit the instant crime by misunderstanding of facts. Defendant 1 did not commit another person’s property as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment. 2) In so doing, the Defendant did not commit the instant crime on the face of theft habits.

3) At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in the habitual condition due to the mental division disease. 4) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing was too unreasonable and unfair.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant stolen another person's property, such as the facts stated in the facts charged in the judgment below. Thus, this part of the allegation is without merit.

B. In determining the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, habitualness refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny. The existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habituality exists.

(2) In light of the following circumstances established by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment (4 times a fine and one time a suspended sentence) for larceny, etc. from around December 2010 to before the instant crime was committed, and the Defendant committed the instant crime on September 14, 2012 after being sentenced to one year of suspended sentence for six months by larceny, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court sentenced on September 14, 2012, and the Defendant committed the instant crime. The Defendant committed the larceny, which was previously punished, on the grounds that the commission of the larceny was stolen from clothing stores, convenience stores, and feet, and was similar to the instant crime. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s act of larceny, which was committed on the part of the Defendant, was committed on the part of clothes stores, convenience stores, and feet, and was similar to the instant crime.