The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 1 to 5 shall be confiscated, respectively.

1. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the Defendant’s night intrusion theft on residence on the ground that there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant committed the crime as stated in the instant facts charged.

However, according to CCTV images before and after the crime, it was confirmed that the defendant had been in the alley path near the crime place of this case, and it was found that the sufficient trace of the arche newly discovered in the vehicle of the defendant and the sufficient trace discovered in the inside of the victim's residence was the same pattern. In light of the fact that the crime of this case is similar to the previous criminal law of the defendant, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed the crime of this case as stated in the facts charged of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On November 17, 2018, between 18:00 and 18:30, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft with one half of the market price equivalent to KRW 600,00,00 of the market price, which was owned by the victim who was kept in custody in the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the said site, where he gets on and out of the gas pipeline installed on the said outside of the said building D; and (b) went into the said outside of the said building D; and (c) opened and enters the joints by a date-type drone, which was prepared in advance.

B. In light of the records, the lower court’s judgment determined that the following circumstances revealed in light of the records, namely, ① as a result of the appraisal of the gymmetric stals of the Amology found on the Defendant’s vehicle on November 9, 2018, and of the arbitral mar and damaged condition found in the victim’s inside and outside of his residence, it is found that the arbitrative mar and damaged condition, which are unique characteristics of the arbitrative mar, were not compared, and the identity of the arbitrative mar appears not to appear on the upper part of the Defendant’s arromatic floor photograph and on-site marical marrology attached to the Defendant’s report