The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no misconception of facts that the defendant stolens the victims' articles as stated in the original judgment.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s past thief crime and the instant crime are not planned or intentionally, but are not conducted in a short period, and they cannot be seen as identical to several methods, so in this case, it cannot be viewed as a case where the habit of larceny was revealed.

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

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the defendant acknowledged this part of the facts charged in the court below; (ii) the victim's vehicle at the time of the trial denied that there was no theft of the victim's goods; (iii) the defendant was found in the victim's vehicle E, and the victim's vehicle at the time of the victims' access to the victim's vehicle; and (iv) the defendant was found in the victim's vehicle E's accident and the victim's wall was discovered in the victim's vehicle E's accident; and (v) the defendant was placed in the victim's vehicle E's contact with the victim's window after reporting that there was a photograph of the victim's identification from the victim's vehicle at the time of the victim's accident; and (iv) the defendant's defense was hard to accept by the victim's window with an open window with the knowledge of the vehicle's vehicle at the victim's H at the time of the victims' vehicle at the time of the accident.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle, theft is concerned.