The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles - The Defendant did not open an entrance and open a door and open a door to enter into the door, while continuing the name influor and telephone, who are co-offenders.

At the time, the Defendant was not aware of the fact that the Defendant had not yet received any information, and was in money in his laundry.

Therefore, even if the defendant entered the house, the defendant would have entered the house.

Even if there was no need for coloring

shall not be deemed to exist.

Ultimately, the Defendant did not commence the act of larceny because he did not enter the victim’s residence at the time of the instant case.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the lower court had already started to enforce larceny.

In light of this part of the facts charged, it is judged guilty, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the commencement of larceny, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (a short-term of 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of 10 months, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the following circumstances are recognized.

(1) The name of an accomplice, who is not his/her accomplice, made the accomplice to withdraw money by deceiving the victim and then put him/her into money in his/her laundry, thereby making the victim put him/her into money in his/her laundry and put him/her in his/her house by mail by deceiving the victim and leaving him/her in his/her house.

(2) The defendant arrived at his/her place of residence, and arrived at his/her name unspecified.

The contact was made, and the nameless person was the phone of the defendant, but the nameless person was the key to the defendant by mail, so that he was the victim's residence.