The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and one year and six months) of the lower court’s sentencing (e.g., imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below ex officio as to the habituality of the crime of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality, and we examine ex officio the case ex officio. After the defendant's defense counsel failed to file a statement of grounds of appeal, the crime of this case was committed against the defendant without the pain in the state of economic lack, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant stolen one smartphones without the defendant's pain, and thus, it cannot be seen as a crime of habituality.

In theft, habitualness refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny. Determination shall be made on whether habituality exists, by comprehensively taking into account the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime, the frequency, period, motive, means, methods, etc. of the crime in the case.

(2) The crime of this case was committed on August 21, 2012 by the Seoul Southern District Court on August 21, 2012, in addition to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was convicted of the crime of this case, such as the suspension of execution of one year and six months, and the crime of this case was committed again during the suspension period of execution for which two months have not passed after being sentenced. ② The contents of the crime of this case were stolen by taking advantage of the difference between the victims' care and the crime of this case, and the crime of this case can be deemed to be identical to the crime of this case and the crime of this case. In addition to the records of juvenile protective disposition of this case, the defendant was found to be habitually punished on August 21, 2012.

B. The defendant's inappropriate sentencing.