The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of habitual larceny, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, on the ground that the instant crime was not caused by the theft habit, and thus, did not recognize habituality.

B. In the event that the Defendant, at the time of committing a crime with mental and physical weakness, was in a state of falling short of the ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking, the lower court erred.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles refers to habition that repeatedly commits the larceny. Determination of whether habitual larceny exists, by comprehensively taking into account the existence of criminal records of the same kind and the frequency, period, motive, means, and methods of the instant crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2956, Jun. 28, 2007, etc.). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years from the Seoul District Court’s branch office on June 9, 1998 to 18 months from the date of the punishment of larceny; 1.6 months from the date of imprisonment for 1.6 months from the date of 6 months from the date of 14.7 months from the Sungnam branch court’s punishment of larceny; 1.6 months from the date of 1.6 months from the date of 1.6 months from the date of 14.7 months from the punishment of larceny; 2.6 months from the Incheon District Court’s imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, May 18, 26.