The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there are errors in the misapprehension of legal principles on criminal records against the defendant, the defendant committed the crime of this case by contingency, and the number of times of such crimes is only one time, and there is a habit of larceny against the defendant.

It is difficult to view it.

Nevertheless, there is a habit of theft against the defendant.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

In the first instance trial, the Prosecutor applied the applicable law to “Habitual larceny” as “Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes” and “Article 329 of the Criminal Act” respectively, and applied law to “Articles 332 and 329 of the Criminal Act”. Since the same is changed by the court’s permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the argument of misunderstanding the legal principles on habitual nature of larceny still is subject to the judgment of this court, and this is to be examined.

B. In the determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the habitual nature of larceny, habitual nature refers to the habit that repeatedly commits the larceny crime. The existence of the same criminal record and the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime in question should be comprehensively considered (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant was subject to suspension of indictment as a night intrusion larceny at the Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office on October 23, 2008, and the Daegu District Court on September 4, 2009.