The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim O.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Defendant 2’s punishment (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) The Prosecutor’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

1) The prosecutor applied for amendments to a bill of amendment to the indictment with the following purport: (a) each of the facts charged in the case at the trial of the party, 2017 order 163, “the theft was committed against each other,” and (b) the crime No. 20 in the annexed crime No. 20 in the annexed crime list “the theft of damaged goods stored in the hallway window is removed and intruded into the hallway window, and is stored in the inner embankment,” which read “the attempted to steals goods stored in the hallway window, by removing and impairing the crime prevention window of the hallway window,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

2) In addition, the time to commence the commission of larceny should be deemed to be the time when the act of infringing on another person’s de facto control over property has commenced.

Therefore, even if it was discovered that another person’s house was destroyed by destruction of the victim’s house for the purpose of larceny and escaped during a day other than night, if the victim’s face was still removed from the window of the victim’s house for the purpose of larceny, it cannot be deemed that the commission of larceny was commenced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do9667, Dec. 2, 2009; 92Do1650, Sept. 8, 1992). Accordingly, among the facts charged in the case of the 2017 Go-Ba163, the Defendant did not have any other evidence to acknowledge the victim’s escape from the victim’s house (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do9667, Sept. 8, 1992).

Therefore, this paper deals with the defendant.