The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the larceny in the judgment below), the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, was aware of the victim’s portable telephone device as one’s own, and the Defendant did not have any intention to larceny.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the crime guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.

The lower court, as stated in its reasoning, on this issue: (a) the Defendant: (b) entered the telecom and returned to the telecom; and (c) the victim was well aware of the fact that the Defendant was living.

(2) The Defendant returned to 2,3,4,5 stories of the telecom, even before he intrudes into the guest room, and the Defendant reported that the knife of the knife of each knife room was opened.

The Defendant stated to the effect that: (a) the Defendant: (b) entered the Fho Lake and G; (c) the Defendant demanded a sexual intercourse with the victim who was broken out in diving; (c) waived it by the victim’s perception; (d) divided considerable conversations in the process; and (c) the Defendant discovered the victim who was suffering from the invasion on three to four occasions in the police investigation; (c) “the fact that the victim was suffering from the invasion”; (d) “the fact that the Defendant discovered the victim who was suffering from the sleep,” “the fact that the victim was broken out from the sleep”; (e) the Defendant was in possession of his telephone machine at the time of the theft crime of this case; and (e) the Defendant’s act before and after the crime of this case.”