The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

No. 7) of the date of seizure dr. Raber (No. 7).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case, the instant crime by misapprehending the legal doctrine is not based on “the development of theft habits,” but is not habitually recognized as a contingent crime.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, habitual nature of a crime refers to any brush or tendency of a crime, which is not the nature that forms the essence of the act, but the character that forms the character of the offender. As such, whether habituality exists shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the offender’s age, character, occupation, environment, motive, method and place of the crime, time interval with the crime committed before, and similarity with

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant committed the instant crime on July 14, 2013, where the execution of the final imprisonment was completed, and the Defendant committed the instant crime on the following occasions: (a) based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court; (b) the Defendant had been punished several occasions by habitual larceny; (c) each of the instant punishment and the instant crime was identical; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime from July 14, 2013, where the execution of the final imprisonment was completed; and (e) the motive, means, methods, and places of the instant crime; and (e) taking full account of the motive, method, and location of the instant crime, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant committed the instant crime by the on-site formation of the larceny wall.

This part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, it is inevitable to impose a sentence on the Defendant in light of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced several times of punishment for the same kind of crime and the Defendant committed the instant crime at least four days after the release. However, the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is not significant, the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment,