The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. An ex officio determination prosecutor shall apply for an amendment to a bill of amendment of the Criminal Act with the name of the defendant as "Habitual larceny" from "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes", and the applicable provisions of the Act to "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and Article 329 of the Criminal Act, and since this court permitted the amendment, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this regard.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. Habituality in larceny refers to the habit of repeated larceny, and the existence of criminal records of the same kind and the frequency, duration, motive, means, and method of the crime of the same case should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of the criminal records of the same kind and the number of the crimes of the same case.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). B.

The following facts are revealed according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

The defendant has already been punished for the larceny more than seven times, and the four times among them is punished for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which constitutes habitual larceny.

The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 16 years and 6 months in total with protective custody from 1984 to before committing the instant crime.

The Defendant committed the instant crime once again for three months after having been released from prison, and the Criminal Procedure Act is similar to the larceny committed by the Defendant.

C. Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant can be found to have a habitive wall against larceny.

The judgment of the court below is about habitual larceny, as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the defendant or defense counsel.