A. The instant crime of habituality is committed by the Defendant with high cold and frozen fishing, and thus cannot be seen as the origin of the theft habits. However, the lower court recognized habituality by misapprehending the legal doctrine on habituality in larceny.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that the instant crime was due to the habition that the Defendant committed repeatedly. (A) Even though the Defendant was punished six times due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) and three times due to larceny, the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime from the date following the completion of the final sentence.

B) The instant crime is committed by opening a door of an unlocked vehicle and stealing the inside of the vehicle, and the means and method thereof are the same as those subject to punishment in the past. (ii) Habitualness in the judgment of the political party refers to the habit that repeats the larceny crime. The existence of the same criminal record and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the instant crime should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of the same criminal record and the frequency, period, means and method of the instant crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4967, Jul. 29, 2010). In addition to the following circumstances, the court below’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

(A) The Defendant repeatedly committed the thief crime of this case four times in a short period of five days.

(B) Although the Defendant alleged that he committed each of the instant crimes with cold and frozen ships, he did so, the Defendant did so. However, he did not appear to prove that he committed the instant crimes.