(b) An attempted larceny at night;

The facts charged originally charged in the instant case can be seen as a number of acts or facts that the Defendant habitually intruded on the residence four times in total from August 6, 2013 to August 18 of the same month and stolen or attempted to commit the precious metal owned by the victims. As such, the appellate court's order of criminal appellate trial does not have the nature of the ex post facto trial and thus it is possible to amend the indictment at the appellate court's appellate court's ruling that the Defendant was deprived of his/her right to defense under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes since he/she was habitually deprived of his/her right to defense under the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes since he/she could not be tried by the first instance court on May 12, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da102979, Jan. 19, 201).

Furthermore, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was guilty of attempted larceny of May 12, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, examining the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the background leading up to each of the crimes in this case, the method of crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of each of the crimes in this case, and there is no error of law in

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Kim In-young