The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Habitualness in larceny refers to a habit that repeats thief, and the existence or absence of habituality shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the existence of the previous thief and the frequency, period, motive, means, methods, etc. of the crime in question.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11550, Feb. 12, 2009). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged in the instant case.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such a judgment by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment by the fact-finding court.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding habitualness in the crime of larceny or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.