The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserted misapprehension of the legal principles as to habitual recognition of the lower court, and withdrawn such assertion on the first day of the trial of the first instance.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, who was sentenced two or more times to imprisonment with prison labor due to habitual larceny, and was habitually intruded upon another person’s residence and subsequently committed a theft or attempted crime. It seems that the nature of the crime is not good and the risk of recidivism is likely to occur.

As in the previous crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime by means of intrusion theft. On September 11, 2018, at the time of committing the crime, the Defendant used a method of intrusion on the victim’s residence through windowing the gas pipe up to the second floor of the building.

In light of the period, frequency, contents, etc. of the Defendant’s crime, it is difficult to deem that the instant crime was committed contingent as the Defendant asserted.

Such circumstances are considered disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, and shows an attitude to reflect his fault in depth.

The Defendant is deemed to have committed the instant crime without overcoming difficulties to return to society due to long-term flooding life while making efforts to adapt to society after having been punished for the previous crime, while working as a construction-day worker, etc. to engage in normal economic activities.

The amount of damage caused by the instant crime is relatively little.

On August 29, 2018, at the time of committing the crime, there was an attempted escape after intrusion upon another person's residence, resulting in the scambling of scams.

The victims agreed with B and H.

Such circumstances should be considered in favor of the defendant.

The defendant's above circumstances and other circumstances.