The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, it is evident that the defendant asserted the misapprehension of legal principles as to the habitual nature of larceny in the statement of grounds for appeal as the grounds for appeal. However, the court below held that the defendant's grounds for appeal should be considered only as the grounds for appeal, and dismissed the defendant's appeal without determining the above misapprehension of legal principles.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court which maintained the court below, the defendant can be admitted as a habit of larceny, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality of larceny in the judgment below, and such omission of judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Meanwhile, under 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 amount of punishment is unreasonable

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