The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles have no habitual nature of larceny.

Of the facts charged in this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine that found guilty of violating the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes Act.

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

2. Determination

A. Habituality in a judgment of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles refers to the habit of repeated larceny, and the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means and method of the crime should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habituality exists.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are recognized.

① On November 24, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for larceny, etc. from the Daegu District Court’s Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court on July 5, 2005 to a fine of two million won for the same crime, etc. from the resident permanently located in the Daegu District Court on July 5, 2005 to a fine of three million won for the same crime, etc. in the same court on December 5, 2005 to a fine of three million won for the same crime, etc. on January 4, 2007, in the sex support of the Daegu District Court on January 4, 2007 to a special larceny from the resident support of the Daegu District Court on October 8, 2009 to a special larceny. On February 15, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

② The thief of this case committed the theft of this case committed by the Defendant by intrusion upon the victim’s stock shed into the victim’s stock shed, carrying the paper spawn onto the cargo spawn.

Most of the offenses committed by the Defendant, which were punished in the past, were stolen by the means of carrying goods into cargo onto another's dwelling, livestock pens, farm, etc., and the objects and methods are similar to the offenses of this case.

In full view of this, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, which led to the theft behavior of the defendant.