1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of two years and six months;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to Article 1 of the Criminal Act in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant is “thief crime as of August 5, 2012, hereinafter referred to as “thief crime as of August 5, 2012.”

(B) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, on the grounds that there was no evidence to reinforce this part of the facts charged in addition to the confessions made by the Defendant’s investigative agency and the court below, and there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (B) Notwithstanding that each larceny crime listed in Articles 2 through 4 of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles is not based on the realization of the Defendant’s theft habit, the lower court recognized this and recognized the facts charged in the instant case as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on habituality in the crime of larceny. (C)

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court as to whether the Defendant committed the larceny crime on August 5, 2012, the fact that the Defendant committed the larceny crime on August 5, 2012 can be acknowledged.

① At an investigative agency and the lower court’s court, the Defendant led to the confession of the thief crime on August 5, 2012. In particular, the police did not commit the said crime, such as the background, motive, means and method of the said crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant made a concrete and detailed statement on the part difficult to make a statement.

(Evidence Records No. 147 to 149). (2) The defendant made a statement that a motor vehicle used by the police for the larceny crime on August 5, 2012 at the police was a P white sck vehicle used for the larceny crime as stated in paragraph (3) of the crime in the judgment below (Evidence Records No. 148 pages).