The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. In view of the fact that the Defendant, in combination with the instant crime, committed seven larcenys, the interval between each of the instant crimes is not close to that of the time, and the Defendant’s economic situation led to the instant crime, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed the instant crime on the face of the theft habit.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the record of this case’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: from February 27, 2010 to June 22, 2010, the Defendant committed the larceny seven times between two and four months from the date of the instant crime; the Defendant had been punished for the larceny prior to the instant crime; the Defendant had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of larceny in night structure; the Defendant committed the instant crime at one month only after having completed the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of larceny; the Defendant entered a private teaching institute, a church, etc. where access is open; and the Defendant committed the larceny of the instant thief by entering the private teaching institute; and thus, the method of the crime of larceny was similar to the location and method of the crime; the Defendant’s entering the private teaching institute located in the second floor of commercial building; and entered the office room after confirming whether there is no person around it; and the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not have any urgent reason for the crime of larceny in light of the legal principles as to the Defendant’s allegation of contingent theft.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing was merely 355,00 won, and the circumstances against the mistake are recognized.

However, the crime of this case is on the birth of the criminal defendant's theft behavior.