The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the records of the Defendant’s crime and the method of the commission of the crime, etc., the court below found the Defendant not guilty on the ground of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) on the ground that the habituality of the larceny is not recognized, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the determination of habituality of the larceny.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle by the prosecutor

A. As to whether the crime of this case is recognized as habitual larceny, the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, on the grounds that it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant’s crime of this case was caused by the realization of theft habit, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the habituality of the Defendant, and on the grounds that there is no other evidence to prove the habituality of the Defendant, it is difficult to find the Defendant guilty of the crime of this case on the grounds that the crime of this case was committed on one occasion after one year has elapsed since the date of the previous crime, that there was a lot of frequency of each crime in light of the criminal records of the same kind of crime.

B. In the first instance judgment of the political party, “Habitual” refers to damp walls that repeatedly commit the larceny, taking into account the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime, the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime.