The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the habituality of the larceny of the defendant on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the habituality of the larceny of the victim because it is difficult to recognize the habituality of the larceny of the victim because the defendant committed the larceny of this case more than one year and six months after the suspension of indictment due to the same crime, and similar to the previous larceny of the thief, the victim has neglected surveillance.

Judgment

In order to recognize habitualness in larceny, it is limited to a case where the crime is deemed to have been committed in addition to the fact that the crime is several times, and the means, method and character are the same, and the crime is committed under contingent motive or urgent economic circumstances, and thus it cannot be deemed to have been committed in a case where it cannot be deemed to have been committed in a case of habitual larceny. In order to recognize habitualness on the basis of the previous offense for which the passage of a long time period, there should be considerable special circumstances to recognize that the crime is the cause of the defendant's habition.

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do35, 84Do3, Mar. 13, 1984). According to the aforementioned legal principle, the Defendant’s health care room and the Defendant’s past thief crime committed by life while continuing to live while coming from the care center at home and abroad. Since then, the thief crime of this case has been committed more than two years at intervals of time until the thief of this case, and the Defendant lives independently from his age without economic support.

The court below seems to have become a major motive for the crime, such as the circumstance that the person was secured to dispose of stolen mobile phones while living together with others, and thus the defendant is habitually thief.