The crime of this case was committed by the defendant while residing in Korea with alcohol and thus, it was erroneous in misconception of facts that the court below judged the defendant's act as a habitual larceny falling under Article 5-4 (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, although the defendant was not habitually habitually

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant has already been punished for larceny more than eight times, and in particular, two times of which are recently punished for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). The defendant has not been punished for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). The crime of this case resulted in the crime of this case in multiple times since the defendant had not been punished for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). The crime of this case is committed by intrusion upon another's residence at late night or

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the appeal by the defendant is groundless.