The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles can be recognized that the crime of this case was committed habitually by the defendant, the judgment below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by denying habitualness.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In criminal proceedings conducted in the form of a participatory trial conducted in order to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the judicial judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, collective opinion presented to the full bench on the recognition of facts is a recommended effect to assist the judge of the fact-finding court who has full power over the preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts under the principle of substantial direct examination and court-oriented trials. If a jury participated in the whole process of fact-finding, such as examination of witness witness, and the verdict of innocence issued by unanimous opinion on the admission of evidence, such as credibility of witness statement, and fact-finding, are adopted as it is in accordance with the trial of the full bench, the first instance judgment on the admission of evidence and fact-finding conducted through such procedure need to be respected unless it appears that the new evidence examination in the appellate court is sufficiently and clearly opposed and clearly opposite to it, in light of the purport and spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination and the principle of court-oriented trials.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14065 Decided March 25, 2010). Examining the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in light of the records, it does not seem that there are sufficient and adequate circumstances to clearly oppose the health class and the lower court’s judgment regarding the instant case, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s habitual nature is accepted through a participatory trial and habitually accepted the jury’s opinion.