The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Written application for compensation by the applicant for compensation is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error or misapprehension of the legal principle, and the unreasonable sentencing) did not habitually commit the theft at the time of the instant crime.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (whether habitualness is recognized) refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny. The existence of criminal records of the same kind and the frequency, period, motive and method of the crime of the same case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of criminal records of the same kind and the frequency, period, means and methods, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550 Decided February 12, 2009, etc.). In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s frequency of the instant crime has reached 18 times and there is no interval between the crimes; (b) the Defendant’s commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the theft; (c) the Defendant’s commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the crime

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

B. Even when considering the fact that the Defendant recognized both the instant crime and against his mistake, and that there is a high possibility that the previous suspended sentence will be invalidated due to the instant crime, the Defendant continued to commit the instant crime even after the Defendant was sentenced to suspended sentence regarding the instant crime while the instant crime was pending in trial due to the previous crime, and according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee, the scope of recommended sentence against the Defendant is two years of imprisonment to four years.