The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. It is reasonable to consider that the Defendant recognized each of the instant offenses and against the mistake of the Defendant regarding the allegation of unfair sentencing. However, the Defendant was already punished by imprisonment in 2006 and 2008 with respect to the larceny and habitual larceny under the same law. Nevertheless, the Defendant again committed the instant habitual larceny during the period of repeated larceny, and taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, family environment, circumstances surrounding the offense, means and consequence of the offense, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances before and after the offense, etc., the lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment, three million won of fine, and KRW 300,000 of fine) is appropriate and too unreasonable.

2. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, in the judgment of the court below, "the choice of some corresponding provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" in the "Application of the Act" means "the pertinent Article of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the choice of punishment for the Aggravated Punishment," and in the immediate below, "(including the theft, the inclusive)" must be corrected as a clerical error of "(the theft, the inclusive of the larceny, and the choice of the limited imprisonment)", and "1. Aggravation of repeated crime" should be added by omitting "(the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)" after the last part of Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Since it is obvious that "the proviso to Article 42" in the "proviso to Article 4