The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The thief of this case alleged by misapprehending the legal principles is committed in the state of mental and physical disability regardless of the defendant's will, and it does not seem that the habition of the thief of this case was unfolded.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (nine months of imprisonment) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether habituality is recognized (1) The term “Habituality” in a larceny refers to a damp wall that repeatedly commits the larceny, and the existence or absence of habituality should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime, the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime, etc.

(2) The defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months with prison labor for larceny on November 1, 1980, 8 months with prison labor for larceny on June 1989, 200 won with prison labor for 20 years, 200 won with prison labor for larceny on July 1995, and 3 years with prison labor for 10 years with prison labor for 10 years with prison labor for larceny, and 10 years with prison labor for 20 years with prison labor for 20 years with prison labor for 10 years with prison labor for larceny, 206, 3 years with prison labor for 10 years with prison labor for 20 years with prison labor for 20 years with prison labor for 20 years with prison labor for 10 million won for larceny, and 3 years with prison labor for 10 years with prison labor for 20 years with prison labor for 20 years with prison labor for 10 years with prison labor for 20 years with prison labor for 20 years from May 27, 20199.