The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the thief among the facts charged in the instant case is of no habitual nature, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to habituality.

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

2. Determination

A. In the determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding larceny, habituality refers to a habit 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 instant crime should be comprehensively considered.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was under criminal punishment twice for the same kind of larceny, such as [criminal record] as stated in the first head of the crime in the judgment below, and in particular, on March 10, 2009, the Incheon District Court sentenced the two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Incheon District Court on March 18, 2009, which became final and conclusive on March 18, 2009, and again committed the crime in this case during the grace period, and the above larceny and the crime in this case, which were subject to criminal punishment, are similar to the object and method of the crime. In full view of these circumstances, the crime in this case can be sufficiently recognized as having been destroyed by the defendant's wall of larceny.

Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and it cannot be deemed that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to larceny in the judgment below. Thus, this part of the

B. The Defendant is partly aware of the favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflected them. However, the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment several times due to the same thief.