Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of legal principles led to the instant crime because the Defendant was unable to maintain his livelihood, and the Defendant’s theft habits was not realized, and thus, the habituality of larceny is not recognized.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Habituality in the part of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles refers to habition that repeatedly commits the larceny, and the existence of the same criminal records and the frequency, period, motive and method of the crime of this case should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of such criminal records (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2854, Jul. 28, 2005). The following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below are as follows: ① the defendant violates the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes of 10 months in imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Northern District Court on April 2, 1987; ② the defendant violates the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Larceny at the Seoul Northern District Court on May 13, 198; and ② the defendant violates the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of 10 months in imprisonment with prison labor at night at the Seoul Northern District Court on June 30, 198.