The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

A seized sexual harassment (No. 7) shall be 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was released from prison in around 2003, and then did not commit any crime as well as larceny for about 12 years prior to the crime of larceny as stated in paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged (hereinafter “the instant larceny”), and thus, the Defendant did not commit the instant larceny. Therefore, even though the Defendant’s crime of larceny was not based on the Defendant’s establishment of the Defendant’s habitor, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that recognized the habituality of the instant larceny, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year, six months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In determining the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, habituality refers to a habition that repeatedly commits a larceny. In order to recognize habituality based on the existence of the same criminal record and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime in the same case, etc., the determination of whether habituality exists shall be made by comprehensively taking into account the existence of such criminal record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). In order to recognize habituality in the context of larceny, several instances of larceny are limited to the case where the crime was committed under the same means, method and nature, and the crime was committed under the same economic condition, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a mere larceny if the crime was committed under the conditions of contingent motive or urgency. In order to recognize habituality based on a criminal record after the passage of time, there is a considerable special circumstance to recognize that the crime was a defendant’s habition.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 84Do35, 84Do3 delivered on March 13, 1984, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, according to the health care unit of this case and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) and the robbery injury by the Busan High Court on April 9, 197.