A. In a case where a person who intrudes upon a misunderstanding of facts steals property, the thief’s intention shall be deemed to be in fact presumed to be the thief’s intentional theft. In a case where the circumstances of a special group that could deny the thief’s intention at the time of intrusion upon a residence are not proven

Since the defendant intrudes upon the victim's residence and steals the victim's Nompt, it is presumed that the defendant's intention to larceny is actually presumed.

There is no special circumstance that the defendant did not have the intention of larceny at the time of his residence intrusion.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of larceny at night, and found the Defendant not guilty.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and confiscation) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had the intention of larceny at the time of the instant case’s residence intrusion, and otherwise, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s intention of larceny.

Therefore, the court below which acquitted the defendant on the charge of larceny at night is just, and the prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

The fact that the defendant intentionally intrudes on the dwelling of larceny must be proved strictly as evidence.

Since intrusion upon residence and theft of property, it cannot be viewed that the intention of larceny at the time of intrusion upon residence is presumed to be presumed to have been presumed.

In the evidence record of this case, there is no evidence to deem that the defendant infringed upon the residence of the victim with the intention of larceny.

The defendant shall not exceed 5 △△△△△ of the Seocho-gu Seoul Building D on the second trial of the lower court.