The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit the instant crime on the part of the theft habits.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to alcohol or shock disorder.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, habitualness refers to the habit of repeated larceny, and the existence of criminal records in the same kind of crime and the frequency, period, motive, means, and method of the crime should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habituality exists.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do1150 Decided February 12, 2009). The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court of first instance by duly admitted evidence, namely, imprisonment with prison labor for a period of eight months from the Cheongju District Court on July 6, 1973; ten months from the Daejeon District Court on June 1, 1974 to the punishment of larceny; eight months from the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of eight hundred thousand won from the Cheongju District Court on July 4, 1975 to the 2nd 3rd 5th 19 from the Cheongju District Court on December 29, 197 to the 19th 2nd 1st 6th 1st 8th 1 from the Cheongju District Court on February 24, 1978 to the 1st 1st 6th 8th 196th 2nd 198.