The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 2, 3, .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) The Prosecutor’s appeal is unreasonable that the lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and return) is too unhued.

B. The Defendant’s appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination: It is based on the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of habitual special larceny ex officio, and as to each attempted crime of habitual special larceny Nos. 7 and 9 in the table of crime No. 2 of March 5, 2015 and the table of crime No. 19 of September 19, 2014 at the time of original adjudication.

The summary of the common facts charged in this part is that "the defendant, together with his accomplice B or L, was aware of or discovered that there is a person who will be injured by residence during the daytime (low) as a means of larceny."

In combination with two or more persons, they intrude into the residence of others for the purpose of larceny in a day other than night.

Even if a person who had already committed habitual larceny does not commit the crime of intrusion upon his/her residence in the daytime for the purpose of habitual larceny, in addition to the criminal who had already committed habitual larceny, but who did not constitute a crime of intrusion upon his/her residence, is not likely to constitute a crime of habitual larceny, because it cannot be deemed that the commission of special larceny commenced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9667, Dec. 24, 2009).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do8169 Decided October 15, 2015). Nevertheless, the lower court held that the crime of habitual larceny was not established in cases where a habitual thief commits an intrusion upon his/her residence as a means of crime during the daytime, and held that the crime of habitual thief was established even if the crime of habitual thief was discontinued prior to the commencement of his/her criminal act by deeming that the crime of habitual thief was commenced at the time of his/her intrusion upon residence. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the crime of habitual thief, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

From this point, the judgment of the court below is correct.