A. The crime of this case alleged by misapprehension of the legal principles is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to habitualness and mental disability in larceny, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the habitualness and mental disability in the larceny, even though the defendant committed the side effects due to excessive recovery and aftermathing, and committed two times in the frequency of the crime.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, habitual nature in larceny refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny. Determination of habitual nature should be made by comprehensively taking into account the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime in the case. On the other hand, it is not possible for an offender to say that the habitual nature of the offender should be denied uniformly on the ground that the offender was in a mental disorder such as mental disorder at the time of the crime, but the circumstances of mental disorder, such as mental disorder, etc. are one of the various circumstances in determining whether habitual nature should be denied or not. Thus, even if the offender was in a mental disability such as mental disorder at the time of the crime, it cannot be concluded that the crime does not constitute habitual nature solely on the ground that the criminal act was not proven, and if there is a case where it is not possible to consider the habitual nature of mental disorder as materials to deny the habitual nature of mental disorder, it is possible to lawfully deny the habitual nature of the offender in light of such legal principles as the judgment of the court below.