2. The Defendant’s mistake against the victim, all damaged materials were returned to the victim, the victim did not want punishment against the Defendant, and the Defendant’s health status is somewhat inappropriate. However, the crime of this case asserts that the Defendant intrudes into the victim’s house through open capitals in which the victim’s family members went out, and that the Defendant did not use dracks in relation to the method of crime.

According to the records, it is insufficient to recognize the part of the facts charged by the prosecutor that "DDA was not detected by the defendant as a result of the gene appraisal of the above Drber, but by the defendant's escape from the crime of this case and the defendant was discovered in the vicinity of the kitchen house (Seoul Northern-gu L), which is the place where he was arrested as a flagrant offender, after committing the crime of this case. Eul reported to the police that the kitchen lock locker was destroyed by the day following the occurrence of this case, but it was recognized that the defendant's DNA was not detected." Thus, it is insufficient to recognize the part of the facts charged by the prosecutor that "the defendant released the victim's house and intruded the victim's kitchen door as a kitchen."

However, since this does not affect the establishment of the instant crime, it is to be considered only as an element of sentencing.

In full view of the circumstances that steals precious metal equivalent to KRW 2.10,00,00, which are disadvantageous to the nature of the crime in light of the method and content of the crime, and the fact that the criminal punishment for larceny has been imposed four times (two times of a heavier penalty), etc., and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, conduct, environment, family relationship, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, equity in the case where a sentence is imposed at the same time as the special larceny for which the judgment became final and conclusive, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. The appeal by the defendant for the decision is with reason.