A. Although misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine acknowledged that the Defendant invadedd a residence, the Defendant did not commit an attempted larceny or a larceny.

The bus articles and services have a little controversy about interference with business and insult, and there is no fact that the crime was committed as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, the Defendant attempted to larceny by intrusion upon another person’s residence on June 13, 2017, and sufficiently recognized the fact that he/she invaded upon another person’s residence on June 16, 2017 and stolen property.

The defendant asserts that his fingerprints or DNA (DA) was not found at the scene of the crime, and that he did not leave or she did so, and denies the crime.

However, the crime committed on June 13, 2017 and June 16, 2017 is fully supported by CCTV, black stuff images, testimony of the victim, etc.

In the form of coloring several houses by the defendant, the escape after the crime appeared in images, and there was no advertisement that the house subject to the crime is not the house of the person and the room.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted, the Defendant’s act of smoking tobacco to bus articles as stated in the facts charged does not start the test.

It is sufficiently recognized that he/she interferes with the normal operation of a bus on the ground that he/she does not receive a request for breaking himself/herself.

Considering the need for the safe operation of means of public transportation used by citizens and the protection of drivers responsible therefor, the Defendant’s insult and obstruction of duties was merely merely an issue of speech or limited to a level acceptable in light of social norms.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) The defendant-appellant.