The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of crimes Nos. 2 through 21 in the list of crimes committed in the judgment of the court below, the defendant was working at the Dpis house operated by himself at the time of the crime, and the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges, even though there was no fact at the scene of the crime, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

B. The sentence of imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, namely, ① the defendant: (a) the prosecutor's office came to know through news that "the method of cutting away things after intrusion upon another person's house; (b) the defendant invaded another person's house due to economic difficulties, such as increase in the value of materials at the time; (c) the first race was subdivided into an empty house; and (d) the defendant made a statement that "the defendant opened a door and intruded with the lock device," and made a statement that "the motive leading to the crime of this case and the method of committing the crime No. 1 through No. 20; and (d) the defendant was found to have been aware of any similar body of the criminal; and (d) the defendant was found to have taken away from the entrance of the defendant's new crime or found to have been found to have been found to have been inside the entrance of the defendant; and (d) the defendant was found to have been found to have been aware of the same crime and found to have been.

Part 1 of the Investigation Record No. 3.