The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit each crime, such as entering the facts charged.

On November 19, 2011, the defendant's house located on the first floor of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government multi-family house in Dongjak-gu, Seoul, practically intruded into the defendant's house with an influence, and took the defendant's cash deduction of KRW 6 million from the defendant, and the defendant only claimed insurance money normally from the insurance company following a fire occurrence.

There is no motive for fire prevention because the part payment of the officetel purchased by the defendant could be fully repaid with the revenues at the time.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined as follows.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was guilty of attempted crimes, i.e., setting the house in which he/she had resided as stated in the facts charged, and making false statements as if the robbery had been invaded, thereby receiving insurance proceeds from an insurance company.

The lower court proceeded with the procedure for a participatory trial, and the jurors were convicted of each of the instant crimes by unanimous consent.

(1) According to the results, etc. of the fire site identification at the fire site identification, the location of the second harassment in the left-hand side of the defendant's house is identified as the location of the first harassment, and there seems to have been separate ignitions from the main floor of the bank because the clothes have been stored on the main floor and the burning marks have been shakened.

(2) [Influence of intrusion by foreign avoidance] The Defendant consistently stated that he was sleep and sleep on the day of the instant case. However, according to the I’s statements and field photographs at the court of original trial, etc., the Defendant did not destroy the locking device of the present official and did not find any other trace of robbery.

(3) [Form in which the defendant is faced] The defendant is against 119 members outside of the entrance door.