The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have any intention to larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the following facts are revealed: ① the victim was exempted from the external dumping before the Red Station toilet, namely, ① the victim was lost due to breaking a passport 2,1,000 o, cash 30,000 won, and one key; and ④ the victim was found to have entered a female toilet by checking the CCTV through the Red Station’s office as a result of checking the victim’s room; ② the Defendant was unable to find the room; ② when entering a female toilet, the Defendant was able to see the victim’s room; ③ the Defendant was able to find that the Defendant was in the front of the Defendant’s residence by tracking the Defendant’s moving line through CCTV; ③ the Defendant was in the Defendant’s custody of the two adjacent apartment bags and the Defendant was in the front of the Defendant’s residence (the Defendant was in the front of the Defendant’s residence).

According to the above facts, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case cannot be said to have erred in the misapprehension of facts, since the defendant intentionally carried the shelter of this case.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.