All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a term of two years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Although the Defendants did not commit the instant crime due to the discovery of larceny and misapprehension of legal principles on habitual nature, the lower court recognized the Defendants as habitual nature of larceny and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on habitual nature.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and confiscation, Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and confiscation for 2 years and confiscation for 2 years and imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months in the judgment of the court of first instance) which the court below sentenced the Defendants in an unreasonable sentencing

Judgment

A. The judgment of ex officio (as to Defendant B), the first and second court rendered a separate judgment after examining each of the above judgments with respect to Defendant B, and the above Defendant filed an appeal with respect to each of the above judgments, and this court made a decision to concurrently examine the above two appeals cases. The first and second judgments with respect to the above Defendant are related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part on Defendant B and the second judgment with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be exempt from all reversal.

However, since the argument of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles about defendant B's habitual nature is still subject to the judgment of this court, it will be examined as follows: the defendant A's misunderstanding of facts and

B. In determining the misunderstanding of facts about habitual nature and the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, habitual nature refers to a habit 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 habitual nature exists.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). Before examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the following can be recognized.