The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was indicted for committing a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Habitual thief) by the Daegu District Court, the Daegu District Court, the 98 High Court and the 973 High Court 2473, the 99 High Court 59 High Court 59 (Joint ) but the Defendant was not admitted as a mere larceny in the Daegu District Court 99No 1463, which was the appellate court.

Nevertheless, the record of crime has been indicated as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Habitual thief).

The second theft crime was prosecuted and convicted of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Habitual thief) due to the influence of the above case when the Daegu District Court was tried as 2001 Highest 906 Highest thief.

As a result, in this case, it is judged that there is a habit of larceny again in this case, which has been punished as habitual larceny.

Although the defendant does not have a habit of larceny, he is punished with excessive punishment.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s lawful investigation and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The Defendant was sentenced to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Habitual thief) on the ground that the Defendant committed a similar larceny in Daegu District Court 98 High Court 2473 and 99 High Court 59 High Court 10 times in a short term. However, in the case of Daegu District Court 9No1463, the appellate court, 99No. 1463, the Defendant did not have any record of larceny, and the thief was deemed to have been committed under urgent economic circumstances, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a year and six months.