Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are due to the Defendant’s theft habits abusing the fact that only the supplied vehicle was subject to the crime and the attention was neglected, and the habitual nature is revealed.

Nevertheless, since the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged in this case, it erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) On December 21, 1985, the court below held that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two years of suspended sentence for special larceny at the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court) on September 19, 196, one year of suspended sentence for special larceny and two years of suspended sentence for two years in the same court on May 20, 2008, eight months of suspended sentence for larceny and two years of suspended sentence for two years in the same court on May 20, 208, ten months of suspended sentence and three years of suspended sentence for larceny from the Incheon District Court's fathercheon Branch on February 10, 201. The previous larceny crime committed by the defendant was committed by the defendant entering the vehicle where the management was neglected, and it is hard to conclude that the defendant was habitually guilty on the grounds that there was no evidence that there was considerable difference in time between each of the previous larceny and the crime committed by the defendant on September 1, 201.