The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, did not commit the instant crime with a view to larceny, the lower court that determined otherwise is unlawful.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle on the assertion that habitual nature in larceny refers to a habition that repeatedly commits the larceny. In light of the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime, etc., the determination of whether habitual nature exists or not should be made by comprehensively taking into account the existence of such criminal records (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do13885, Nov. 24, 2016). 2) Based on the legal principle as seen above, the health unit regarding the instant case based on the foregoing legal principle; and the record of the crime related to the same type of crime committed by the Defendant prior to the instant crime that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below; the method of and similarity with the method of the previous crime, and the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime again at least six months after the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Ultimately, this part of the defendant's assertion based on the different premise is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant's factual basis for the instant crime is recognized that the facts of the instant crime are recognized, the mistake is divided, and the defendant reflects the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, the crime of this case is a theft of one handbag, which is owned by the victim, using the gap in which the defendant was living together with the victim.