A. The crime of this case by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles is deemed to have been committed with drinking alcohol and impulsely, and thus, it is not by the habitation of theft, and thus, the defendant is not recognized habitually.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In a misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, habitualness refers to a habition that repeatedly commits the larceny, and 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 such criminal record (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: (i) the Defendant was punished for the same type of crime in this case six times only after 200 years; (ii) the details of the criminal record were stolen by a restaurant or store, and most of them were the same or similar method as the instant crime in which surveillance was neglected; and (iii) the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime in one month after the completion of the execution of the final punishment for the same kind of crime; and (iv) the frequency and time of the instant crime was sufficiently recognized as the interval between the Defendant and the Defendant’s larceny.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable.

B. The Defendant, who alleged unfair sentencing, led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime, and one of the instant crimes was discovered.