The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the legal principles and the criminal records of the defendant, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 10 million won) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In determining the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, habitualness refers to the habit of repeated larceny, and the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime in the case should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habituality exists.

(2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months for larceny, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1150, Feb. 12, 2009). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant: (a) was subject to a disposition of transferring juvenile protection cases to a special larceny on Nov. 26, 2003; (b) a fine of five hundred thousand won for larceny on May 6, 2009; (c) a fine of five hundred thousand won for larceny on Sept. 21, 2009; and (d) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten months for larceny on Jan. 16, 2013; (b) it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant committed the crime of larceny, including the number of larceny (one criminal offenses); and (d) the Defendant committed the crime of larceny during the same period from 30 years to 307 times, supra.

Therefore, among the facts charged of this case.