A. Although it was true that the Defendant had committed a larceny, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of habitual larceny among the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “Habituality,” even though it was not due to the realization of a thief.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of larceny (1) Habituality refers to a habit of repeated larceny, and the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime of this case should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habituality exists.

(2) On July 19, 205, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for six months with prison labor from the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch on April 17, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2854, Jul. 28, 2005). In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor from the Sungwon District Court’s Sungnam Branch on June 30, 200 to six months of suspension of execution due to special larceny, etc. on January 16, 2013; two years of suspension of execution in the Seoul Western District Court’s imprisonment with prison labor from the Seoul Western District Court for larceny; five million won of punishment with prison labor from the Suwon District Court’s Suwon Branch Branch on April 17, 2015; the Defendant was sentenced to six months of punishment with prison labor from the said Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. on June 5, 2015; the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor and two years of larceny.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is the instant case.