misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles recognized that the defendant stolen another's property by drinking out one living disease after entering a tent on May 13, 2016. However, there is no evidence to support that the defendant's act of entering a tent does not constitute intrusion on a structure, and that the defendant stolen another's living disease with the intent of acquiring it.

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

Judgment

In the context of the crime of misunderstanding of facts or entering a structure into a structure that is the object of the act of intrusion, a structure that is the object of the act of intrusion is a structure that is composed of surrounding walls, columns, and roof or ceiling (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do5351, Oct. 7, 2005; 2007Do7247, Dec. 13, 2007). This does not merely refer to a structure itself, but includes a summary thereof.

In order to be the summary of the above land, it should be clearly revealed that the manager has provided the land for the use of the building by installing the door and fence on the boundary with the outside.

(1) In a case where a person intrudes upon another person’s residence at night with the intent to steals another’s property, it shall be deemed that the criminal act of larceny at night as prescribed in Article 330 of the Criminal Act has already been commenced at the stage of intrusion upon the residence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4417, Oct. 24, 2003). The commencement of the crime of intrusion upon residence is not required to include the act of entering a building, etc. which is either contrary to the will of the person who is a residence, manager, or occupant, or entering a management building against the latter’s will, i.e., the act of partially realizing the elements of the crime, but the act of including the realistic risk leading to the fulfillment of the elements of the crime.