The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant did not commit the instant crime on the face of larceny, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on habituality, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of various circumstances on the Defendant’s grounds of unfair sentencing.

2. Determination

A. In the determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding larceny, habituality refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny. 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 should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habituality exists.

(3) The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the same court on August 13, 1986 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1150, Feb. 12, 2009). The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below as follows: (i) the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Jeonju District Court on June 12, 1981; (ii) the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the same court on April 13, 1986; and (iii) the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Jeonju District Court on April 30, 1987.