The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant did not commit the instant crime on the face of larceny, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on habituality, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of various circumstances on the Defendant’s grounds of unfair sentencing.

2. Determination

A. In determining the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, habitualness refers to a habition that repeatedly commits the 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 the same case should be comprehensively considered in determining whether habituality exists.

(2) On February 12, 2009, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of larceny in the Daejeon District Court on April 2, 1991; (b) two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of larceny in the same court on May 20, 194; (c) one year and six years of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime in the same court on November 28, 1997; (d) three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime in the same court on February 5, 2002; and (e) one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of larceny in the previous District Court on October 28, 2010; and (e) one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of larceny in the previous District Court on October 28, 2010; and (e) the Defendant was found to have been parked for each of the above crimes of larceny on March 1, 2012.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant recognized the instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing.