1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “Habituality” in the crime of larceny.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment or that the amount of the punishment has been extremely unreasonable. As such, in this case where one year and six months has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor against the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too

Furthermore, even upon examining records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.