All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and August, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four months) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s habitual nature may be recognized in light of the fact-finding on the part of acquittal of the first instance judgment; and (b) the criminal act of larceny, such as the criminal facts written in the judgment of the first instance court, was repeated by the same several methods; and (c) the Defendant had been convicted of larceny over four times.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s 1 punishment with respect to the first instance judgment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. As to the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the court below against the judgment of the court below, and the court decided to hold the above appeal jointly and severally.

Each crime of the judgment below against the defendant is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principle is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

3. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court’s determination that it is difficult to readily conclude that the crime stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the first instance court was due to the theft habit is due to the mere evidence submitted by the prosecutor, is justifiable, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it.

4. The judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the pleadings are made, without examining the judgment of the court below as to the unjust argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor.