A. The instant crime of habituality, in light of the legal principles as to habituality, was inevitably committed by the Defendant due to his life in the past ten years after the execution of the final sentence was completed due to the same kind of crime, and thus, cannot be seen as the realization of the theft habit. However, the lower court recognized habituality as a matter of course is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality in larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentencing on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court determined that the instant thief crime was a thief on August 30, 2013, comprehensively taking into account the following facts and circumstances, i.e., (i) the Defendant committed each thief on five occasions in a short period of 40 days; (ii) the number of each thief crime as indicated in the judgment of the lower court is similar; (iii) the Defendant gradually becomes specialized in the method of committing the instant thief by using divers; and (iv) the Defendant was arrested on August 27, 2013, when he committed the thief and thief on August 30, 2013, when he committed the thief by committing the instant thief. < Amended by Act No. 11690, Aug. 30, 2013>

B. Habitualness in the judgment of the political party refers to the habit of repeated larceny, and the existence of criminal records of the same kind and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime of this case should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habituality exists.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4967, Jul. 29, 2010). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, the foregoing fact-finding by the lower court is justifiable.

In addition, the following circumstances that can be seen by evidence, namely, ① the Defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on July 18, 1995 for larceny, etc., and two years for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) on May 25, 199.