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.

B. 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.

(3) The criminal defendant is not subject to punishment for larceny on June 9, 1998, with a comprehensive consideration of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted by the court below, i.e., imprisonment with prison labor on August 8, 1998, with prison labor on September 14, 2001, 8 months from Suwon District Court's Sung-nam branch for night intrusion larceny, with prison labor on May 18, 2005, with prison labor on August 18, 2005, with prison labor on June 15, 2006, with prison labor on June 15, 2006, or with prison labor on June 1, 2006, with prison labor on June 18, 2008, or with prison labor on September 16, 2008.

Therefore, the defendant.