The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the theft by the defendant, it is necessary to punish habitual offenders.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of fine) is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

A. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for changes in the name of the crime and the applicable provisions of Acts in the trial, and the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the object of the trial is changed by the party members' permission.

B. Although there are grounds to reverse the judgment of the court below regarding the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding legal principles is still meaningful.

(1) Habitualness in larceny refers to a habition that repeats larceny. The existence of criminal records of the same kind and the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime of the same case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of the criminal records of the same kind.

On the other hand, it cannot be said that the habitual nature of the offender is uniformly denied on the ground that the offender was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder at the time of the criminal act, but the situation such as mental disorder is one of the various circumstances that are materials to determine whether or not the habitual nature is denied. Thus, even if the offender was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder at the time of the criminal act, it cannot be readily concluded that the criminal act is not habitual nature, and it can not be considered as materials to deny the habitual nature of the mental disorder, and if there is a case where the habitual nature cannot be considered as materials to deny the habitual nature of the mental disorder, it can be considered together with other circumstances that the offender was in a state of mental disability such as mental disorder, such as mental disorder, and it can be evidence to deny the habitual nature of

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550 decided Feb. 12, 2009). (2) Gamba, 1.