A. The Defendant, who misleads the Defendant of the fact, was drunk and invaded upon another person’s residence, and did not have the intention of larceny.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on evidence duly adopted and examined: ① the Defendant committed a theft of intrusion under the same series of laws, such as intrusion upon a house with a gas pipeline on the outer wall of the building and theft of money and valuables; ② the Defendant received juvenile protective disposition 11 times from around 2009 to around 2010; ② the Defendant had the record of suspension of execution and punishment after around around 2012; ② the Defendant lying down a knife vehicle on the front roof of the knife vehicle parked on the first floor, and entered the victim’s residence through the gas pipeline and window of the building; ③ the victim’s sound above the smaller part of the wall, i.e., the Defendant’s act of intrusion upon the house at the time of the investigation into the victim’s residence, and the Defendant did not have any economic reason to acknowledge the fact that it was difficult at the time of the first investigation into the victim’s house with a view to 1200 square meters of money and valuables.

B. The conditions of sentencing are not changed compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first deliberation is not made.