All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the prosecutor (1) can recognize the defendant's habition by taking into account all circumstances such as the number of larceny crimes, means, methods, and motive of the defendant, the court below denied the defendant's habituality and rendered a not-guilty verdict as to the habitual larceny, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the habituality.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the Prosecutor’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, habitualness refers to a habition that repeatedly commits the larceny. The existence of criminal records in the same case and the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habituality exists.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant’s theft of goods owned by the victim F for about 25 months is acknowledged, but the Defendant does not have any thief power in the past, i.e., having no thief power in the past, and each thief of this case’s thief on the ground that the Defendant had been working at the factory in the operation of the victim FF, and that the thief of this case’s thief of this case’s thief of this case’s thief of this case’s thief of this case’s thief of this case’s thief of this case’s thief of this case’s thief of this case’s thief of this case’s th

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality as asserted by the prosecutor, and this part of the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes on the assertion of unfair sentencing.