The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

one (Evidence No. 1), seized e.g., ELLOUPE;

The Defendant, misunderstanding the summary of the grounds for appeal, committed the theft of this case, not at night, but at night.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) due to habitual intrusion theft of residence at night. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence sentenced by the court below (4 years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

Before determining the reasons for appeal by authority, this paper will examine ex officio.

The lower court deemed the Defendant to have led to a confession of all the facts charged in the instant case, and determined and notified that the Defendant would be tried through a simple trial procedure, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged in accordance with that procedure.

However, since the Defendant partly denies the crime of this case that was committed during the time of the trial, not during night, but during the day, it is recognized that it is considerably unfair to judge this case as a simple trial procedure.

Therefore, this Court revoked the order of the court below that decided to judge by simple procedure of trial in accordance with Article 286-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act at the first trial date, so the judgment of the court below according to simple procedure of trial cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

In the trial of the amendment of the indictment, the prosecutor applied the law to the defendant as stated in Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 330 of the Criminal Act, "Article 5-4(6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act," and applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport of changing the charge to the charge of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) due to habitual "the thief" (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) in the