The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant not guilty of habitual larceny in light of the facts and the legal principles, although the defendant's habituality was recognized. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconception of the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to larceny cannot be viewed as having been made only once a thief act was committed, and it is possible to recognize habituality only when the crime was committed, and multiple times’s crimes were committed in a contingent motive or critical economic situation and thus cannot be viewed as having been committed, it cannot be viewed as habitual larceny (see Supreme Court Decision 76Do259 delivered on April 13, 1976). 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and duly adopted and examined by the evidence, namely, ① the defendant appears to have committed each crime of this case in a relatively short period of time to have reached the pain, ② most of the places where the crime was committed, where the defendant was assault or assault, and was committed in several times, and where the crime was committed in an imminent manner, and it cannot be viewed as having been committed, and ④ the defendant did not have any other evidence, and ④ the defendant did not have any other evidence, except for the case where the defendant was sentenced to a fine, and ④ the defendant did not have any other evidence.

3) Therefore, the prosecutor’s above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination as to the wrongful argument of sentencing 1).