The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. A seized wall (Evidence No. 4).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, each of the crimes of intrusion upon each of the instant buildings, larceny, and the crime of violation of the Automobile Management Act committed in the course of robbery, and thus, the crime of robbery and the crime of robbery in the instant case are crimes of conceptual concurrence. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court deemed that the entire crime of robbery in this case, each of the crime of entering a structure, larceny, and the crime of violating the Automobile Management Act are in a substantive concurrent relationship, respectively, and determined the punishment against the Defendant by adding the heavier punishment to the concurrent crimes of robbery.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant changed the number plate of the vehicle to be used in robbery into a different one, and found that the defendant intrudes into the underground parking lot of two apartment sites at intervals of one hour for the purpose of hiding his/her crime and removed the registration number plate of the vehicle parked in one of the two places.

Therefore, the crime of entering each building above and the crime of larceny and the crime of violating the Automobile Management Act are the crime of robbery and the crime of commercial concurrent crimes.

In addition, it is reasonable to see that the defendant's theft and the violation of Automobile Management Act were realized by one act, and therefore there is a commercial concurrent relationship.

If the crime of intrusion upon each building and the crime of larceny and the crime of larceny and the crime of violation of Automobile Management Act are in the relation of conceptual concurrent crimes with each other, the crime of intrusion upon each building and the crime of larceny and the crime of violation of Automobile Management Act are in the relation of concurrent crimes, even though they are in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes, it is sufficient to impose the punishment stipulated for the most severe crime against the crime of robbery which is in the relation of conceptual concurrent crimes, and it is necessary to increase the