The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s crime of larceny in this case, claiming a misunderstanding of facts as to habituality and misapprehension of legal principles, is due to the Defendant’s mental disorder, such as an uneasiness, lack of recognition ability, and female goods, and is not caused by the theft habit.

B. The Defendant, at the time of committing the theft of this case, was in a state of mental disability due to the mental disorder such as an uneasiness, lack of recognition ability, and female goods/contribute, etc.

C. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to habituality and misapprehension of legal principles, habituality in larceny refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny. The existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime in the same case should be considered comprehensively and determined.

On the other hand, it cannot be said that the habitual nature of the offender is uniformly denied on the ground that the offender was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder at the time of the criminal act, but the situation such as mental disorder is one of the various circumstances that are materials to determine whether or not the habitual nature is denied. Thus, even if the offender was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder at the time of the criminal act, it cannot be readily concluded that the criminal act is not habitual nature, and it can not be considered as materials to deny the habitual nature of the mental disorder, and if there is a case where the habitual nature cannot be considered as materials to deny the habitual nature of the mental disorder, it can be considered together with other circumstances that the offender was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder, such as mental disorder, and it can be evidence to deny the habitual nature of

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, health care units are as follows.