The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, did not err by intrusion upon another person’s residence, thereby thefting the damaged article.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the CCTV images around the place of each of the instant crimes, the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of factual misunderstanding can be acknowledged based on the following circumstances: (i) on the surface of the Cheong-Cor vehicle (vehicle number: J) parked at around the time of each of the instant crimes; (ii) the owner of the above blue-ray vehicle is L, and the actual user is the same as G with the G, whose father was L, and the person driving the above blue-ray vehicle on April 8, 2015, was confirmed as the Defendant; and (iii) on the day of the instant crimes, the enemy-ray vehicle discovered at the scene of the instant crimes appears to have infringed upon the residence of the Defendant, taking full account of the following circumstances:

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

3. The fact that the defendant does not recognize the crime of this case, the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case even during the period of repeated crime of the same kind, the victim did not agree with the victim, there is no change in the special circumstances or circumstances that can be newly considered in the sentencing after the decision of the court below, and the amount of damage, the character and conduct of the defendant, the motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. are conditions for the argument of this case and the sentencing indicated in the record