A. The instant crime is not planned to be committed by misapprehending the legal principles, and thus cannot be deemed to be committed through habitual crimes.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on habituality, thereby adversely determining the facts charged of this case as habitual larceny.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant had a record of criminal punishment more than 10 times for the same crime, and the Defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny and has committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime.

In full view of all the circumstances, such as the time and method of each of the instant crimes, the background and interval of the crimes, etc., the Defendant can be recognized as habitual theft.

We do not accept the Defendant’s assertion of law.

B. The Defendant expressed his/her intent that he/she does not want to be punished by the Defendant under an agreement with a certain victim.

However, considering the facts alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair, even if all of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant were to be considered.

We do not accept the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.