The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The thief crime of this case committed by the Defendant related to habituality is not a crime of habituality.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion regarding habituality, habituality refers to a habition that repeatedly commits the larceny, and the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means and methods of the crime should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habituality exists.

(2) On February 12, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for special larceny, etc. at the Daejeon District Court on November 7, 2002; ② the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) at the Seoul District Court on September 12, 1989; ② the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) at the Southern District Court on March 26, 1993; ② the Defendant was sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) at the Daejeon District Court on February 1, 2002; ③ the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the punishment was executed) at the District Court on February 111,

Even if it is nothing more than the main part of the network, it is sufficient to recognize the habitual nature of the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected, and the Defendant’s years desire to leave the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant.