Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A (1) has committed a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below recognized the habitual nature of the thief in spite of the fact that Defendant A committed a thief in the form of a thief, and that it was not caused by the realization of a thief, inherent in the Defendant. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension

(2) The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and the mental disorder was in the state of mental disorder. Although the Defendant committed the instant crime with no or weak capacity to discern things or make decisions, the lower court did not recognize mental and physical disorder.

(3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor as to Defendant B, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court did not expressly judged Defendant A as not guilty on the part of habitual larceny. However, in the judgment of the lower court, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of all the charges of habitual larceny of “Joint” against Defendant B, and found Defendant A guilty only of habitual larceny on the premise that the part of habitual larceny of “Joint” is not guilty. In full view of the similarity between Defendant A’s criminal records, place of crime and veterinary method, which can be known by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the instant crime of this case is also the same as the previous crime of this case.

Therefore, this purpose is to this end.