A. In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the Defendant did not have a habit of larceny.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, habitual theft refers to damp walls repeatedly committing the 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 determined as to whether habitual larceny exists (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2854, Jul. 28, 2005). According to evidence, the defendant may not be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for at least six months in Seoul District Court on December 26, 200; two years in suspension of execution; 1.5 years in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Caused by Larceny at the Macheon District Court on April 29, 203; 2.1.5 years in prison from the date of the crime of larceny at night; 3.5 years in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes committed by the defendant on March 17, 2005; 2.6 years in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

B. The conditions of sentencing do not change compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing is at the discretion.