A. As to Defendant 1’s misconception of the facts, the victim C’s book was opened at the time. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that “the Defendant opened a string door and entered the house.” 2) The lower court sentenced the Defendant to an unreasonable sentencing sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts (the defendant) alleged to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below held that it is difficult to accept the defendant's above assertion and recognized the fact that the defendant opened a string door door and enters the house using the keys located in the front of the front of the front door of the office of the C, in light of the victim C's police statement that "the front door was removed from the front door, and there was a preliminary heat stored in the front door when the precious metal was diminished in the front door at the defendant's house," and the defendant's previous criminal acts.

In light of the above circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below's decision, the defendant was just in the determination of the court below, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of facts alleged by the defendant, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles against the facts alleged by the defendant. The court below did not err in misapprehending the legal principles on the part of the defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(b).