The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles have committed the larceny in this case after three years or more since the completion of the execution of the sentence due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the frequency of the larceny in this case is only two times, and there is no habituality of the larceny in this case.

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 Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and fine of 300,000 won) 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.

In other words, on June 1, 1973, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of one year and six months, a long term of two years, and five years in the same court on February 5, 1976 due to habitual larceny, etc. on April 21, 1982 by the same court on September 4, 1996; four years in the same court on March 17, 2004; 30,000 won in imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. and fine of 10 months and 300,000 won in the same court on June 7, 2005; and one year and six months in imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. and one year and six months in the same court on May 4, 2007.

The Defendant committed each theft of this case.