The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the former thief and the instant thief are different in the means, method, and mode of conduct from the instant thief, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant has a habit of larceny.

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

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, habitual nature refers to a habition that repeatedly commits the larceny. In light of the existence of criminal records of the same kind of crime, the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime of the same crime, etc., whether habitual nature exists or not shall be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). (ii) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the original court and the trial, namely, (i) the Defendant was subject to suspended sentence twice by larceny, special larceny, etc. before the instant crime was committed; (ii) the Defendant was sentenced to suspended sentence due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; and (iii) the Defendant was admitted to have been sentenced to one year and six months imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of larceny; and (iv) the Defendant was not repeatedly punished on March 27, 2013 and each of the larceny committed by the Defendant from around September 1315, 2013.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is rejected.

B. As to the assertion on unreasonable sentencing, the Defendant’s primary agreement with the victim X, N,Y, Z, AA, T, R, and F is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the court below set the punishment by fully considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant.