The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The thief of this case’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to habituality is not based on the Defendant’s theft habit, and thus, habituality is not recognized.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, habitualness in the assertion of larceny 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 in this case should be determined after comprehensively considering the existence of such criminal records.

(2) On February 12, 2009, the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Cheongju District Court on August 31, 2012, and two years of probation, and the Defendant had the record of having been sentenced to six months of imprisonment in the same court on December 24, 2012, and ① the thief and the thief in each of the larceny in this case entered a vehicle with most of the thief and the thief in each of the larceny in this case, and driving of the thief in this case and driving of the thief in front or in front of the thief in this case, and deemed that the Defendant committed the thief in this case and committed the thief in this case or the thief in a similar manner during the suspension period of execution, and the Defendant committed the thief in this case and thus, committed the thief in each of this case.