The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The instant crime is a crime committed by the Defendant who is under the influence of alcohol, and not only once the crime was committed, but also is different from the crime punished prior to the applicable method of the crime, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s theft habits was realized.

2) The Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol while lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the habitual nature of larceny refers to the habition that repeatedly commits the larceny. A) In full view of the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime, the frequency, period, motive, means, and methods of the crime, etc., and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009, etc.), although the crime of this case was committed one time, it is recognized that the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant’s larceny that attempts to steals goods by facilitating the commission of the crime or by taking advantage of the victim’s improper situation.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) After 2000, the Defendant was punished on six occasions for committing the crime of larceny or larceny.

The sum of the term of punishment amounts to 12 years and 6 months, and there are two cases where habituality of larceny is recognized.

(2) On March 19, 2016, the Defendant, after having been released from prison on March 19, 2016, again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime.

(3) Vehicles that were not damaged or locked by the Defendant’s existing larcenys.