The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, inasmuch as each of the larcenys in this case was not based on the Defendant’s realization of the theft habit, and thus, cannot be recognized as habituality of larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Habituality of a crime in judgment of misapprehension of the legal doctrine refers to any brusity of a criminal and a tendency of a crime, which is not the nature that forms the essence of the act, but the character that forms the character of the offender. Thus, the existence of habituality shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the age, character, occupation and environment of the offender, motive, method and place of the crime, time interval with the crime committed before, and similarity

(See Supreme Court Decision 207Do3820, 207Do8 Decided August 23, 2007, etc.). The following circumstances revealed by evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on September 12, 201 with a view to making soup to the new wall from around December 201 and from around May 201 to June 2012, 201, the victims of smartphones were stolen on five occasions by using crepanes and frys, and the Defendant was sentenced to a soup sentence of 10 years with a view to having been sentenced to a soup punishment of 20 years from the first instance court on September 12, 2012 (the defendant was sentenced to a new punishment of 201Da8535, Jun. 10, 2012) or with a view to having been sentenced to a fine of 10Da3820, Jun. 18, 2012.