All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) In light of the prosecutor’s (1) mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the same criminal record of the defendant, the frequency, period, motive, means, method, etc. of the crime of this case, the crime of this case shall be deemed to have been realized of the theft habits of the defendant. Thus, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize habitualness is erroneous

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unfortunate and unfair.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In the determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, habitual nature refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny. The existence of the same criminal record and the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime in question must be comprehensively considered (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant had a habit of larceny and the Defendant committed the crime in this case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(1) In 2002 and 2004, the Defendant has been subject to punishment three times in total for larceny in 2006 due to a crime of larceny in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

However, the previous conviction is at least at intervals of 11 years and the date of the instant crime.

② The crime of the same kind committed by the Defendant was committed by taking advantage of an opportunity to enter another person’s residence or temporarily reside in another person’s residence for the purpose of theft of property.

The crime of this case, which steals the food value paid by customers in an open restaurant, and the means and method of the crime of this case are different.

③ The instant crime was committed on 12 occasions in total, but the six times out of which occurred during the nearest time period of September 13, 2017, is merely the nature of the offender based on the frequency of the crime.