A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1), the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, although it could sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant committed an act to steal the property with the intent to steal the building and the commencement of the commission of larceny into the night structure, and the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On June 29, 2017, the summary of this part of the facts charged was in front of the “K” operated by the victim J, which was located in Yansan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 00:28 on June 29, 2017, and the Defendant attempted to steal property by intrusion through the main window, but the emergency bell installed there was an escape and attempted to commit an attempted crime.

2) The lower court determined as follows: (a) even after examining the legal principles as indicated in its reasoning, it is difficult to find out the photographic pictures that the Defendant passed around the instant site, and for any reason, it is difficult to find out that there was no evidence to find out how the Defendant committed an act to intrude into the instant building; and (b) the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, which led to the commencement of the Defendant’s intrusion on the structure.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the charges on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) Examining the records in light of the records of the above deliberation, we affirm and accept the above fact finding and determination by the court below as just, and the fact-finding results with respect to the corporation in KT tele Ba, alone, is insufficient to reverse it, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment of the court below.

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

(b) the defendant;