The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the crime under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below was committed by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below recognized it as an attempted crime.

Shedly, the Defendant infringed upon the night or the body of a person, and did not have any intrusion upon the residence of a person. However, the court below acknowledged the occurrence of the residence as an aggravated factor among the general salvists according to the sentencing guidelines.

Article 22 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of five years, and the defendant shall not be punished by the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on the ground of such criminal records.

Therefore, the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant is found to have committed the crime under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, which had been loaded with the cargo loaded in the open storage yard E at the time of the crime, and moved to the second floor of the studio construction site immediately next to the judgment of the court below. Thus, the defendant's possession of the victim's above-mentioned interest was infringed, and it was placed under the defendant's factual control, and it is judged that the defendant acquired the possession of the defendant. Thus, larceny has become void.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this part is not accepted.

According to the evidence alleged by the defendant, which was not an intrusion upon the victim's residence as an element of sentencing, the defendant was found to have stolen old interest, etc. by intrusion upon the victim's open storage places, warehouses, and offices as stated in the judgment below at the time of each of the crimes of this case. The court below is on the sentencing criteria.