All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendants did not commit the instant crime on the face of larceny, but committed the instant crime, 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 punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of various circumstances on the Defendants’ imposition of unfair sentencing.

2. Determination

A. In determining the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, habitualness refers to a habition that repeatedly commits the larceny, and 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.

(2) According to the records, Defendant A received juvenile protective disposition five times from 200 to 2004 due to special larceny, Defendant B received three times from 202 to 2003 due to special larceny, and the Defendants were sentenced to one year and six months from 2010 to two years from 2010, and two years from 2009. ② The crime of this case is confirmed by Defendant A’s first race, and it was committed by Defendant B’s intrusion into one’s house through Defendant B’s window, etc., and it was committed by means of larceny in light of the following: (a) around 2002 to 2004, Defendant B received three times juvenile protective disposition due to special larceny; (b) the Defendants were sentenced to one year and six months from 2010 to 2003, and (c) the Defendants were economically and repeatedly living in Jeju-do; and (b) the Defendants were able to commit the crime in a short period of time, and (c) the Defendants were living in Jeju-do.