The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

In 2012, the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office that has been seized.

1. Although the summary of the grounds of appeal did not constitute a crime of this case with a habit of larceny, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to habitual larceny.

2. In order to recognize habituality in a judgment of larceny, there are several special circumstances where the crime is deemed to have been committed in addition to the facts that the crime was committed in question, and the crime was committed under contingent motive or imminent economic circumstances, and thus, if it cannot be deemed to have been committed, it cannot be recognized as habitual larceny. In order to recognize habituality on the basis of the previous offense for which the date of time elapsed, there is a substantial need for special circumstances to recognize that the crime was committed as a defendant's attack.

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 84Do35, 84Do3 delivered on March 13, 1984). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant did not seem to have a habit of larceny at the time of the instant case.

① The Defendant had a total of six times of force, but three times of which are criminal records prior to May 13, 1994. The remainder three years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Seoul Central District Court on May 13, 1994; four years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of robbery committed by Incheon District Court on October 15, 199; eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of special larceny at Seoul High Court on December 11, 2009; and the date on which each of the crimes was committed last larceny is considerably at intervals of time and at intervals of time on May 21, 2009.

② Defendant’s thiefing prior to 200 is a method of retailing, which differs from that of this case.

(3) On January 18, 2010, the Defendant: R R, located in Q from the date of release, for two years and nine months after the release.