The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case due to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the court below did not recognize the defendant as a mental disability, and instead recognized the defendant as a person with a habitle of larceny, and applied Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to the facts in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on habitualness and mental disability, which affected

B. The sentence of one and a half years of imprisonment imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Habituality in the determination of a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding habituality refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny. Determination of habituality ought to be made by comprehensively taking into account the existence of criminal records in the same type of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime in the same case.

On the other hand, since an offender was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder at the time of the crime, the habituality of the offender is not uniformly denied.

It is only one of the various circumstances in which the circumstances of mental and physical disability, etc., such as mental and physical disability, are materials to determine whether habituality is denied.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded that a perpetrator was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder at the time of the crime that he/she committed, solely on the ground that he/she was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder, and that the crime is not habitually realized, and that habituality can be recognized by taking into account other circumstances, and if there is a case in which the part of mental disorder such as mental disorder cannot be considered as a material to deny habituality of the offender, it may be a material to deny habituality of the offender

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). The lower court and the lower court.