The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts constituting a crime [2015 senior 754] No. 1 of the judgment of the court below are not punishable because the facts constituting a crime of special destruction and damage as stated in the judgment of the court below fall under the crimes of larceny in the habitual night structure as stated in paragraph (2) (i.e., absorption relation among crimes of larceny in the law). However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a three-year imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and habitual night structure larceny are different in terms of the composition requirements and protection of legal interests. Generally, the establishment of habitual night structure larceny does not entail special damage, such as property, etc., on a typical basis; and special damage cannot be said to be a minor that is not considered separately compared to habitual night structure larceny.

Therefore, the act of special damage has become a means of larceny of a structure habitually at night.

In addition, such special damage constitutes “fluoral accompanying acts” and is in a absorbing relationship with regard to larceny of frequent night structures.

In addition, the subject matter of the crime cannot be seen (in this case, the subject matter of the crime is also referred to as the “former exchange” in the case of special damage, and in the case of habitual night structure intrusion larceny, it is referred to as the “former or branching” in the case of habitual night structure theft). The lower court has a relation of habitual night structure intrusion larceny and each substantive competition with the Defendant.

The decision is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

B. There are extenuating circumstances such as: (a) the gains acquired by the Defendant from the instant crime are less than the frequency of the crime; and (b) the Defendant reflects his mistake.

On the other hand, however, the defendant's criminal records as stated in the judgment below.