The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts. The court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, Article 2(2) of the facts charged in the case No. 645 order of 2020 (the facts charged in the judgment below and the part not guilty) of the court below was tried by the prosecutor, and the part regarding larceny was divided into larceny and the crime of destroying property. The part regarding larceny was that “The defendant stolen the part, at around March 8, 2020, by taking out KRW 100,000 in cash, which is the victim’s possession in the place where the above paragraph(1) was entered, and at the seat of the camera.

“The part of the crime of destruction of property is “Around March 8, 2020, the Defendant was placed in a Kabter in order to prevent the occurrence of larceny crimes, such as the foregoing paragraph 2, at the place described in the foregoing paragraph 1, around March 16, 2020.

As a result, the connection line of the CCTV verification has been well equipped with the above monitors, and it has been destroyed by breaking it into the unclaimed land.

"Application for changes to "(the purpose of dividing the facts charged as property damage to larceny for cash and CCTV verification monitors)" was filed, and this Court changed the subject of adjudication by granting permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing, and it is again decided as follows (the prosecutor's grounds for appeal are with regard to CCTV confirmation monitoring as stated in the existing facts charged).