The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant crime by misapprehending the legal doctrine is not only at the interval between the thief committed by the Defendant in 2008 and the 4 years, but also the Defendant’s habitual crime was committed in a difficult situation, and is not a crime where the Defendant’s habitual nature was revealed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which recognized habituality is erroneous in the misapprehension of 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 determining the misapprehension of the legal principles as to habitual nature, habitual nature refers to a habit that repeatedly commits the larceny. The existence of criminal records in the same case and the frequency, period, motive, means and methods of the crime should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habitual nature exists.

(2) On the other hand, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years for larceny on November 11, 2008 and 2008. The defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years for larceny. The contents of the crime under the above criminal records are both identical to the Act on the Number of Crimes, the object of the crime, and the place of the crime. 2 years have not passed since the period of suspended execution by the above sentence was terminated, and 5 times again or repeatedly committed the crime of this case in the same manner in a short period of time as one month, and 3. The defendant did not have to have any new income from his own real estate marriage.