The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the period, frequency, and the defendant’s previous records, each of the larceny crimes of this case committed by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant may be admitted as a habit of larceny.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, and the community service order80 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Habituality in larceny refers to a habition that repeatedly commits larceny. The existence of the same criminal record and the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime in the instant case must be determined by comprehensively taking into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). (b) According to each of the evidence duly adopted at the lower court and the trial, the Defendant opened a door on January 17, 2014 and took things off, but the door of the vehicle was suspended on February 27, 2014; the Defendant was found to have been tried to steals articles by entering a vehicle on August 27, 2015 and tried to steals articles from around 10 to 20 years of age 5 to 25 years of age 18, as evidence of the instant crime (Evidence No. 582).

(c)

In full view of the aforementioned legal principles and the facts acknowledged as above, the Defendant can fully recognize the fact that he/she committed each of the larceny of this case with habitual nature.

Therefore, prosecutor's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are justified.

3. Conclusion.