A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the above crime, although the defendant did not have committed a crime of intrusion upon residence or larceny as stated in the list No. 3 of each crime committed by the court below. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (eight months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, namely, whether the victim E is only the one who sent an luxus to the investigative agency, who sent back to the house be located inside the house located in the GuO in the early 14:00 of November 10, 2016 at the investigation agency, and wear upper and lower-ranking clothes, with a man who uses a luxa and volunteer on the ground that he was a man who uses a luxa;

He called "I will am in lieu of Appins" and "I will am in place of Appins," and he was aware that there was no cash due to the lack of cash.

“A relatively concrete statement to the purport of “” is the fact that the Defendant stated relatively concretely in the investigative agency of the Republic of Korea, and the Defendant assumes a volunteer in the vicinity of the old city of Changwon-si around November 10, 2016, entering the house of the victim, leaving the house of the victim, leaving the house of the victim, leaving the victim inside the house, and bread the victim, leaving the cash from the money inside theus of the victim, and leaving the victim to spath after taking the cash from the victim’s occupation.

It refers to the case.

“The testimony was made to the effect that it was “,” and this part of the facts charged was recognized in the court below’s trial by the assistance of the state-appointed counsel. The above confession statement is mostly consistent with the above statements of the injured party, and it is not deemed that it was made with the fact that it was not actually experienced, and it is possible to suspect the credibility thereof.