The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that recognized the habituality of the thief was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle, since the thief crime committed by the defendant was not caused by the formation of the thief.

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

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal. On this occasion, the court below held that habituality refers to the habit of repeated larceny, and should be judged whether the defendant has habitually committed the larceny, taking into comprehensive account the existence of the same criminal record and the frequency, period, means, and method of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1150, Feb. 12, 2009, etc.). Although the defendant committed the crime one time, the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, (10) the defendant was sentenced to punishment more than 11 times among them, and seven times among them was recognized as the theft habit of the defendant, and the defendant was punished as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) since his previous crime was committed within a short period of time, and (2) most of the defendant committed the larceny before and after his previous crime was committed, and (3) during the period of larceny and its execution.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to see, the instant crime is committed.