Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In regard to the crime No. 1 in the holding of the court below, the defendant entered the residence of the victim in the substantial Gu of Cheongju-si, but since the above residence had the mother's implied permission, since the mother was living and living together, it does not constitute a crime of intrusion upon residence. 2) As to the crime No. 2 in the holding of the court below, the village minutes (hereinafter referred to as "village minutes of this case") which the defendant attempted to steal from the victim's residence.

(B) Even if the village minutes of this case are not owned by the Defendant, the Defendant believed that the village minutes of this case were owned by the Defendant, and thus, did not have the intention of larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for the amendment to a bill of amendment by the victim E or K Village Association of Paragraph 2 of the judgment below in the trial of the court below. The subject of the judgment by this court was changed by granting permission, and the above facts charged are found guilty in accordance with the amendment to a bill of amendment as shown below. As such, the revised facts charged and the remaining facts charged are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, even if there are reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the part of residential intrusion except for the attempted larceny committed by Amendments to Bill of Indictment is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Judgment on mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1.