A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (as to attempted larceny of night buildings), the court below rendered a judgment not guilty by misunderstanding the facts charged, or by misunderstanding the legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he attempted to commit an attempted crime while intrusion into H factory marina operated by the victim G as stated in this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of suspended execution in October, and one hundred and twenty hours of probation and community service) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On April 13, 2013, the summary of this part of the facts charged was determined as follows: (a) around 19:59 on April 13, 2013, the Defendant discovered CCTV camera installed in front of the bed office building and attempted to commit a crime while searching for things to be stolen by intrusion into H factory H in Jin-si; and (b) on the other hand, the Defendant attempted to commit a crime. (c) The lower court’s judgment that “building,” which is the object of an act of intrusion in night-time structure intrusion larceny, includes not only the building itself, but also the above summary attached thereto, in light of the fact that the crime of intrusion into a residence is actually protecting the interest of peaceful protection. However, even if the above summary was a land adjacent to the building, which contributes to the outside and boundary of the adjacent building, and the land was installed and provided for physical use by the outside (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5157, May 25, 2007).