A. There is no fact that the Defendant committed larceny (i.e., theft on December 23, 2012) on the grounds that there was no fact between “E restaurant” and “E restaurant,” and thus, there was no fact that the Defendant committed larceny.

B. On March 15, 2013, the Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, did not enter the “H” warehouse in order to find a toilet with urgency at the time of the instant crime, and did not enter the said warehouse for the purpose of larceny.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances: (i) the judgment of the court below on the charge of larceny on December 23, 2012, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below; (ii) the crime of this case, namely, the crime of this case was committed by intrusion into a restaurant by removing a copy of the correction device installed in the back door, and thus theft of property; and (iii) the Defendant’s fingerprint is identical to the thief punished before the towing; and (iv) the Defendant’s fingerprint is found in the cash receipt and disbursement machine where the damaged article was kept, the Defendant could be found to have committed the thief in this case; and therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges

The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court on March 15, 2013, namely, ① the victim G was placed in a warehouse with two money stolen, and the alarm was installed at the entrance of the warehouse of this case; ② the Defendant’s statement at the time of his prosecutorial investigation (Evidence No. 116 pages) and the warehouse structure (Evidence No. 125 pages) prepared by the Defendant were known of the structure and the location of the warehouse of this case. In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant appears to have been aware of the structure of the warehouse of this case and the location of the toilets of the Defendant’s storage (Evidence No. 125 pages) after intrusion, and the Defendant was placed in a room where the victim’s clothes were stored immediately after the intrusion.