All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the Defendant’s criminal history, method of criminal punishment, etc., the instant crime can be sufficiently recognized that the instant crime was due to the Defendant’s realization of the theft habit, but the Defendant does not have habitual nature of larceny.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which found the habitual larceny not guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of habitual larceny, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is difficult to readily conclude that each of the thiefs committed by the Defendant was due to the theft habit, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the Defendant is not deemed to be habitually

On the other hand, the court found the defendant not guilty on the grounds of habitual larceny, but found the defendant guilty on each larceny included in the facts charged.

2) A) Habituality in a theft refers to a habition that repeatedly commits the larceny. Determination of whether or not a person has habitually committed the larceny is made by comprehensively taking into account the existence of the same criminal record and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). In order to recognize habituality, criminal records are several times for the larceny. The method and nature of the crime are the same, and the crime was committed under contingent motive or critical economic circumstances, and thus, the crime cannot be deemed as a habitual larceny if it cannot be deemed as a crime of larceny (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do354, Mar. 13, 1984; b).