The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether mitigation under the Criminal Act is applied to attempted larceny (1) in this case, the Defendant’s crime is limited to one time, and there is time interval exceeding two years from the previous last larceny, and the Defendant’s mistake is divided, and it is difficult for the Defendant to grow up without receiving proper care from his parents, and is punished for several larceny crimes. In light of the above, the lower court’s punishment is excessively heavy.

(2) However, the statutory penalty for the larceny of repeated crimes applicable to the instant case is difficult to take more than six years since the lower limit of imprisonment for a limited term is six years, and even if mitigation is carried out, the lower limit of three years is less than three years, and as long as mitigation is not carried out.

Therefore, in the case of habitual larceny pursuant to Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, it is necessary to examine whether the “voluntary mitigation” under Article 25(2) of the Criminal Act is permissible.

(3) Article 5-4(1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010) provides that "any person who habitually commits or attempts to commit a crime under Articles 329 through 331 of the Criminal Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than three years." As such, habitual larceny under the above provision determines the attempted larceny itself as a constituent element of a crime and is under the law of imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than three years. Article 5-2(6) of the same Act on the aggravated punishment of the crime of kidnapping and inducement provides separate penal provision for attempted larceny of some parts. On the other hand, Article 5-4 of the same Act on the aggravated punishment of habitual larceny, not a penal provision for the same type of punishment.