The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The motion for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case shall be dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) misunderstanding the facts, misunderstanding the legal principles, and misunderstanding the legal principles (1) The Defendant’s entry into the instant apartment under the victim’s understanding and consent, thereby constituting a justifiable act that does not infringe upon a residence or at least does not go against social norms.

(2) A copy of the resident registration mark and a copy of the divorce report do not constitute property which is an object of larceny, because there is no economic value.

In order to know the name of the injured party, the abstract of the resident registration mark is carried out, and the child has a divorce report in order to explain the reason of divorce, so there is no intention of illegal acquisition.

There was no intention to acquire the above damaged article, and it was left ice from the process of being towed by police officers.

Even if it falls under the requirement to constitute larceny, it is not against social norms in light of the above circumstances.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1 on the grounds of appeal pointing out the grounds of appeal pointing out that the Defendant has the same assertion as otherwise alleged in the lower court.

The court below rejected the assertion in detail under the title of the "decision on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel".

Examining the lower judgment in comparison with the record, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s act constitutes intrusion upon residence and larceny is justifiable.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

2) The fact that there is less economic value of the damaged goods to be judged on the unfair argument of sentencing, and that there is no record of criminal punishment, not only a fine of KRW 300,000,000,00,00

On the other hand, the defendant thought only from his own point of view, intrudes on the victim's residence and property of the victim.