A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Seized 's seats' are attached.

A. Each sentence (the first instance court: the imprisonment of April, the second instance court: the imprisonment of February, the suspension of execution of execution of the sentence, etc.) of the lower court against the Defendant (the lower court’s judgment) is too unreasonable.

B. On December 23, 2019, it is reasonable to view that a prosecutor (the second judgment of the court below is not guilty) misjudgments, misunderstanding legal principles (the second judgment of the court below is not guilty), Defendant was aware of the location of stolen goods while stolen goods at the victim’s residence in the victim’s residence six days prior to the time of intrusion upon the victim’s residence, and thus, starting the commission of larceny when entering the victim’s residence. Even if not, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware of the victim’s personal injury after the victim’s intrusion upon the victim’s residence and then the Defendant was discovered. Nevertheless, the second judgment of the court below which judged otherwise was erroneous in the misapprehension of a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The second judgment of the court below on the acquittal portion of the Defendant’

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal.

The first and second original judgments are pronounced on the defendant, and the defendant filed each appeal against each of the above original judgments, and the prosecutor filed each appeal against the second original judgment, and this court tried the above two appeals jointly.

Each crime of the judgment below against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still meaningful, and this is examined below.

B. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts.