The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of habitual larceny, even though the Defendant did not commit the instant crime with a habit of larceny, on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year, two months, and confiscation) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We first examine whether the Defendant is habitually aware of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

Habitualness in the crime of larceny has been repeatedly committed by larceny and one year has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the victims of larceny on April 10, 2015, and all other circumstances, such as the frequency, means, method, and motive of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below are as follows: ① The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months due to larceny, etc. on March 31, 206; ② the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months due to larceny, etc. on April 20, 2015; ② the defendant was not sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year from April 10, 2015; ② the defendant was not released from the house without prison labor for 15 months before he was released from the house.

However, since the goods, etc. that the defendant tried to steals are not essential to maintain a living, it was conducted to escape from imminent economic difficulties.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to see the instant crime, the Defendant’s person.