The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. For the purpose of theft, the Defendant did not intrude into a structure listed in the crime sight table No. 2 as indicated in the judgment below for the purpose of theft. There was no fact that the Defendant stolen an object at the time and place listed in the crime inundation No. 3 and No. 4 as indicated in the judgment below.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the infringement of buildings listed in No. 2 of the crime sight table in the holding of the court below, the court below found the defendant's assertion that ① sought jobs at the construction site at the second construction site in the crime sight table No. 2 in the judgment of the court below, and ② at the time of the crime, the defendant found the worker N to H who was a witness at the time of the crime.

was entered into a building in which toilets were used only.

In light of the fact that the defendant's assertion is difficult to believe that he entered a structure, which is a place for committing the crime No. 2 in the crime list in the decision of the court below in order to use a toilet. In full view of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant's assertion was difficult to believe, it can be recognized that the defendant invadedd the structure No. 2 in the crime list No. 2 in the

The decision was determined.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to larcenys listed in Nos. 3 and 4 of crime sight table in the judgment below, the fact that the defendant went to the construction site stated in Nos. 3 and 4 of crime sight table in the judgment below is recognized.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the record, i.e., ① even if the vehicle booms images, weather brick images, etc. are used, the defendant is the place where the crime is stolen.