The guilty portion of the judgment below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of mistake of facts in this case was committed in an economically difficult situation, but did not have a habitive wall for larceny, but the court below recognized the habitual nature of the defendant and found the defendant guilty of the charge in this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant, on the first trial date of the trial of the trial court, withdrawn the argument of mistake of facts concerning the crime in paragraph (2).

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability, as he had a shock disorder due to depression, depression, etc.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of larceny of property by habitually intrusioning another person’s residence within three years after the execution of his/her sentence was completed, as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6) of the facts charged, and determined that the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes was a single comprehensive crime.

In a case where a criminal who committed a crime such as habitual larceny under Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes has invaded upon his/her residence as a means of the crime, the act of intrusion upon his/her residence constitutes only one crime of habitual larceny, etc. prescribed in the said Article, and does not constitute separate crimes of habitual larceny, etc. In addition, the criminal who committed the crime of habitual larceny, etc., committed the crime of habitual larceny, etc., in addition to the crime, has been invaded by his/her residence for the purpose of habitual larceny, and even in a case where he/she has committed the crime of habitual larceny, he/she is deemed to be the actual occurrence of habitual larceny, etc., and constitutes only one crime of habitual larceny, etc. prescribed in the said Article, and