The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Seized evidence 1 to 4 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Habitual denial of the defendant is not recognized as habitual larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) The habituality of the crime refers to a brush and the tendency of a criminal offender. The nature of the act is not that of the offender, but the character that constitutes the character of the offender. Thus, the existence of habituality is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the age, character, occupation, environment, motive method and place of the crime, time interval with the previous crime, similarity between the previous crime and the contents of the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6176 Decided May 11, 2006, etc.). According to the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the crime of this case committed on 12 occasions within a short period of about 3 months, although there was no record of the same crime by the defendant, the crime of this case committed on 12 occasions within the short period of about 3 months, and the crime of this case committed by the defendant, which was committed by dividing the first class of the house into a house with the entrance, and by infringing on the house and bringing money and valuables using the entrance, can be recognized as having a similar means, place, etc.

In full view of all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case in the above legal principles and facts, the crime of this case can be deemed to have been established by the defendant's habition. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. B. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the prosecutor tried to examine the Defendant’s ex officio, and the Defendant’s “the Defendant” at the trial of the lower court, at around September 8, 2013, at around 11:30, 823, 000, divided the first race and confirmed that there was no person, and then, the Defendant intrudes into the house by putting a sweeded with an omission prepared in advance on the lock door.