A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the charge of larceny of night buildings, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, even though it was only entered the instant structure to avoid drilling at the time of the instant case, and there was no computer theft as stated in the said facts charged.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, on the grounds that the Defendant could have infringed on the office of this case and recognized the fact that he stolen a computer, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unreasonable sentencing, the Defendant recognized the crime of larceny at night in the instant case up to the trial, and divided his mistake.

During the investigation process, some of the damaged articles of night intrusion and larceny were seized and returned to the victim C.

However, on the other hand, the court below seems to have determined the punishment by considering all favorable circumstances for the defendant as above, and there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that can be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the court below.

In particular, at night, the defendant stolen goods by intrusion upon the victims' residence, etc., and the thief crime as a means of intrusion upon residence is highly likely to lead to violent crimes.

The Defendant is prior to each of the instant crimes.