The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of this case by misapprehending the legal principles is a crime committed by a defendant who committed an accident while driving the remaining streets in which economic circumstances are difficult, and is not a crime whose habituality of the defendant has been revealed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized habituality is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality.

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

2. Determination

A. In determining the misapprehension of the legal principles as to habitual nature, habitual nature refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny. The existence of criminal records in the same case and the frequency, period, motive, means and methods of the crime should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habitual nature exists.

(3) The crime of this case is established based on the Defendant’s recidivism, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years, with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) on July 10, 2012; 2. The crime of this previous conviction is committed by the means of escaping, with the intent to show the victim’s opposition, if the victim shows his opposition, as it is most likely that it would be purchased from the bank; 3. The crime of this case was committed again over a short period after being punished with the same kind of criminal power as above.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. An agreement with the victim on the argument of unfair sentencing is reached, and the defendant is in violation of depth, but the defendant has the same criminal records as seen earlier.