The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not find one's house due to the mental retardation and did not enter the victim's house where the entrance was opened, and did not know of why he/she entered the house, and did not have any act for larceny by intrusioning the victim's house for the purpose of larceny.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the basis of the confession, etc. of the defendant who is not reliable due to mental retardation is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, but in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

Therefore, since the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, the above argument by the defendant is with merit.

① In the trial of a party, the victim E stated that “The sound entering the house through the window was concealed in the toilet and the small room, and there was no attempt for the Defendant to enter the house, and the Defendant was only shot in the outside, and was unable to listen to the sound, such as opening shots or opening shots, etc., and even when she left the room after her husband’s arrival, she could not at all be seen that shots or carrying shots could not be seen even if she left the room after her husband’s arrival,” and the victim E appears as a house with open window upon her husband’s arrival at the wife “D” house, which is the husband of E, and thus, the Defendant was able to go only in the ward, and she was her letter.