The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case is that the defendant committed the crime of this case in this case due to the necessity of an amount equivalent to the fine for negligence to be paid for the recovery of the cancelled resident registration when the defendant was unable to find a job but was economically lacking, and thus, the judgment of the court below which recognized the habituality of the theft of the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to habituality.

2. In the judgment of larceny, habitual nature refers to the habition that repeatedly commits the larceny, and the existence of the same criminal record and the frequency, period, motive, means and methods of the crime in the same case shall be determined by taking into comprehensive account the existence of such criminal record and the frequency, period, means and methods, etc.

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) on October 21, 2010 due to the habitual nature of larceny committed by the Ulsan District Court on the ground that: (a) the Defendant had been sentenced to three years due to night-time intrusion and larceny; and (b) the contents of the crime committed by the above previous criminal offenders are primarily at night, in particular, by opening home door or windows at new wall time (02:0:06:00) and entering a house; and (c) the Defendant was found to have been sentenced to three times due to a repeated crime of this case, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (d) the Defendant opened the door door of the victim who was not corrected at night at night; and (e) opened the ward; and (e) tried to larceny property again during the same period as that of this case; and (e) the Defendant’s repeated crime of this case, which is identical or similar to that of this case.

Therefore, it is true.