A. The thief of this case’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to habituality is not based on the Defendant’s theft habit, and thus, habituality is not recognized.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, habitualness in the assertion of larceny refers to the habit of repeated larceny, and the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime in this case should be determined after comprehensively considering the existence of such criminal records.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant committed each of the larceny charges of which was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million at the Daegu District Court on August 10, 2012, which was issued a fine of KRW 3 million for larceny at the Daejeon District Court on August 5, 2013; ② each of the larceny charges in receipt of the summary order as above and each of the larceny charges of which was issued and the part of the larceny charges in this case is considered to fall within the scope of the public use; ② one of the larceny charges in each of the larceny charges of which the victims was issued and the other theft charges of this case is deemed to have been committed by each of the larceny charges of this case; ③ one of the larceny charges of this case is deemed to have been committed by each of the larceny charges of this case, and one of the larceny charges of this case is deemed to have been committed by each of the larceny charges of this case, and one of the larceny charges of this case is deemed to have been committed by each of the larceny charges of this case, and one of the larceny charges of this case.

Therefore, there is a habit of theft against the defendant.