The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the defendant had not invaded the victim's residence as stated in the facts charged, is erroneous in mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, probation order, and community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, it can be recognized that the Defendant attempted to steals goods by intrusioning the victim’s residence, such as the facts charged, and attempted to steal them.

(1) The injured party stated at an investigative agency that "I am in his residence at around 22:07, and there were sand that I am in the front room, and that I am in the middle of the beer, and that I am in the middle of the body." The injured party's copier stated that "I am in the middle of the body, I am in the investigative agency that I am in the middle of the body, I am in the middle of the body, I am in the middle of the body, I am in the middle of the body, I am in the middle of the body, I am in the middle of the body, and I am in the middle of the body, I am in the middle of the body, I am in the middle of the body, and I am in the middle of the body, I am in the middle of the body of the injured party." In addition to the fact that the above male stated that I am in the body, I am in the part of the injured party.

②피해자가 수사기관에서 ‘없어진 물건은 없으나 자신의 지갑 속에 들어있던 농협카드가 삐딱하게 빠져나와 있었다’는 취지로 진술한 점, 현장감식결과보고서, 수사보고(현장지문 감식결과)에 의하면 피해자의 농협카드에서 피고인의 지문이 발견된 점 등을 종합해 보면, 피고인이 피해자의 주거에 침입하여 절취할 물건을 물색한 사실을 인정할...