The appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor shall be dismissed, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not commit the crimes listed in [Attachment 1, 2, and 3] among the crimes in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, the act described in No. 4 constitutes only a crime of intrusion upon residence.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge of misunderstanding the facts, or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the involuntary confession or the commencement of larceny.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (4 years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s assertion that the above sentence declared by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the attached Table 1, 2, and 3 as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment of the court below. In light of the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Voluntaryness of confession or confession as alleged by

(2) With respect to the part as stated in the [Attachment 4] No. 4 of the Crimes No. 5 of the lower judgment as indicated in the lower judgment at the preparatory hearing date of the lower trial, the prosecutor, at the time of the prosecution at the preparatory hearing of the lower court, requested the victim H to change this part of the facts charged concerning the victim H, which was “one hundred thousand won in cash, was stolen from the wall No. 100,000 won on the wall No. 100,000 won on the deposit of the ward,” and the lower court permitted this.

However, the applicable provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the time the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment.