The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact-finding facts, the Defendant committed a theft of a mobile phone worth KRW 14774,740,000 on about 70 days, and the method of the crime was planned and consistent, and up to the organizational aspect of disposing of the stolen mobile phone that was stolen to the stolen business entity after the crime, etc., the Defendant is recognized as a habit of larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On December 24, 2009, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant did not have been subject to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime except for the fact that the Defendant was subject to a disposition of sending juvenile protection case through special larceny, etc.; (b) the instant crime appears to have been committed in a contingent and dynamic manner rather than planned and organized; and (c) the Defendant’s age, growth environment, motive for the instant crime, etc. in full view of the following factors: (a) it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant crime was caused by the Defendant’s theft of 163 mobile phones over a short period of time on the sole ground of the Defendant’s theft of 163 mobile phones; (b) the habitual nature in the judgment of the instant court refers to the habit that repeats the larceny, which means the habit that repeats the larceny; and (c) the existence of the same criminal conviction, the frequency, period, means, and method of the instant crime, etc. should be comprehensively considered

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). In light of these legal principles, the court below properly explained, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, the court that purchased a stolen mobile phone, i.e., (i) a person who used a mobile phone to buy a mobile phone with the aforementioned agency when the defendant works on a mobile phone agency, and (ii) a person who purchased a stolen mobile phone can purchase a mobile phone with the J around September 2013.