2. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant made confessions of all of the crimes of this case and is against the will of the defendant, that the police officer agreed with the victim and the F does not have the same criminal record, etc. However, the crime of this case is committed in favor of the defendant. On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed in favor of the defendant, by opening the entrance door to the key in which the defendant was no longer present at the victim D's house, and by opening the door door to the window crepan, it is attempted to intrude upon the defendant's house. After D's house, it differs from D's house so that D's voice was opened to the front house of this case, and it is hard to see that D's face was 40 minutes of age before and after the second day of this case's house, and it is hard to say that D's face was obstructed by the defendant's unlawful acts, such as assaulting the defendant's appearance by means of violence before and after the police officer's 112 report, and thus, it cannot be seen that the defendant will wear the above 's face.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.