The facts charged originally prosecuted in the instant case are several natural acts or facts that the Defendant habitually invadedd the residence four times in total from August 6, 2013 to August 18, 2013, and stolen or attempted to commit the precious metal owned by the victims. Thus, the appellate court's amendment of the indictment was possible at the appellate court because it is possible for the appellate court to amend the first instance judgment because the Defendant was deprived of his/her right to receive the trial under the Constitution, solely on the grounds that the Defendant was deprived of his/her opportunity to obtain the first instance judgment on May 12, 2013, which is the charges added by the amendment of the indictment in the lower court. < Amended by Act No. 11714, May 2013>

Inasmuch as it cannot be said that a person was disadvantaged in exercising his/her right of defense during the trial process (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do3297, Feb. 17, 1995). Therefore, the lower court’s measure that allowed the amendment of indictment, which added the charges that constitute a single comprehensive crime with the original facts charged, cannot be deemed as erroneous

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

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, each of the crimes of this case was committed.