A. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to habituality, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though each of the instant offenses cannot be deemed by the Defendant’s larceny.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, habitual nature refers to a habition that repeatedly commits the larceny. The existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime in the same case should be comprehensively considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). The fact that juvenile protective disposition was issued may also be considered as materials for habitual recognition.

(3) On July 21, 1995, at the Gwangju District Court on the same offense at the Gwangju District Court on December 12, 198, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do2097, Dec. 12, 1989). < Amended by Act No. 3478, Mar. 17, 1981; Act No. 3874, May 15, 1986; Act No. 4878, Jul. 21, 1995; Act No. 4878, Jul. 23, 2010; Act No. 4870, Jul. 23, 2010>