All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. A. A prosecutor 1) In light of the fact that the Defendant, through misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, stolen the goods by means similar to the difference in the victim’s occupation on about 37 occasions in a year and 14 months, and considering the fact that it is difficult to see the Defendant as a crime of larceny due to living conditions because of the inclusion of smartphones, electronic pre-announcements, and Nowon-North Korea in the damaged goods, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant has habitualness of larceny. However, the lower court’s judgment denying habitualness is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) Even if it is not so, the lower court’s sentencing

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, habitualness of a crime refers to any brusities of a criminal and the tendency of a crime, and it does not constitute the nature of the act, but the nature of the offender's character. Thus, the existence of habitualness shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the age, character, occupation, environment, motive, method and place of the crime, time interval with the crime committed before, and similarity

In light of the above legal principles and the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below is conducted by the court below. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do3820, Aug. 23, 2007; 2007Do48, Aug. 23, 2007). In light of the above legal principles, the court below is just to conclude that the defendant has a habit of larceny on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, such as (i) there was no criminal conviction against the defendant; (ii) there was no criminal conviction against the defendant; and (iii) there was a series of ways to commit the crime, including that the motive for committing the crime took various forms as at that time, and (iv) there was no ground to conclude that there was a habit of larceny.