The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not have any factual background that the Defendant entered each of the instant unmanned convenience points or as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged that the defendant stolen goods and interfered with the business by entering the unmanned convenience store.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the Defendant did at the trial of the lower court.

On the other hand, the court below did not accept the defendant's assertion and found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged in this case by comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined such as field CCTV CDs.

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the facts as alleged above by the defendant.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the grounds for sentencing stated in the instant argument and the record as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court appears to have reasonably decided by fully considering the various grounds for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to ex post facto change the sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.