A. Personal matters emitted from CCTV of the victims of misunderstanding of facts (hereinafter “instant criminal”) are not the Defendant, but the evidence for each of the instant crimes is not sufficient.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s argument that the Defendant had argued to the same effect as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal in the form of a trial by the public. The lower court, based on CCTV images as at the time of each of the instant crimes, (i) around 01:58 on the same day as at May 7, 2017, and (ii) around 02:41 on the same day, the criminal committed between 01:51 and around 02:41 on the same day, went into a taxi in the vicinity of the Defendant’s residence, and intrudes the victim’s residence (i.e., the CCTV at the time of the instant crime), and (ii) around 7:01:20 on May 7, 2017, the Defendant was released from the CCTV at the time of the instant crime, and (iii) around 05:30 on May 10, 2017, the Defendant was released to the Defendant’s new seat at the time of the instant crime (i.e., the Defendant’s clothes at the same time of the Defendant’s clothes).