The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that recognized the habituality of each of the crimes in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, although each of the crimes in this case is not based on the theft habit.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, habitualness 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 in the same case, determination of whether habituality exists should be made, by comprehensively taking into account the existence of

(1) Each juvenile protective disposition was issued on April 12, 2006 under the evidence duly adopted by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1150, Feb. 12, 2009). The following circumstances, namely, the defendant, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and each juvenile protective disposition was issued on April 19, 2006, May 22, 2006, and December 7, 2006, and three years after the suspension of execution on December 23, 2009, and one year and six years after the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and one year and one year and six months after the suspension of execution on July 15, 2010, each of the above crimes committed repeatedly by the defendant, including imprisonment with prison labor, and each of the above crimes committed repeatedly on August 26, 2012.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s confession of criminal facts and reflects on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the amount of damage caused by each of the crimes of this case is not so large, and some of the crimes are attempted, and the Defendant’s age is the same.