The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Regarding the gist of the grounds of appeal: (a) the Defendant did not know the victim’s house at around September 21, 2010; and (b) on October 9, 2010, the discovery of hacker and hacker from the Defendant’s clothes in the Defendant’s clothes and hacker, which was the victim’s prior possession, pretended to be taken out from the Defendant’s clothes; and (b) the Defendant was invaded upon the Defendant’s residence; and (c) the Defendant was called from the victim on October 8, 2010 to the victim’s house and found it at the victim’s house; (d) on the other hand, the Defendant did not have an intention to intrude the victim’s house; and (e) the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts guilty of each of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, such as the witness E’s legal statement, investigation report, and CCTV suspect’s photograph, etc. on the thief, the Defendant: (a) around September 20, 2012: (b) around 21:17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) saw a white knife on the police box located in the victim’s home; (c) stated that “I want to have his own things at the victim’s home in the presence of the police station” on the ground that I would not enter the victim’s house without the victim’s permission, and (d) rejected the above document box on the same day on the grounds that the Defendant could not enter the victim’s house without the victim’s permission; (b) received the victim’s report on the theft of the victim’s house and the Defendant’s escape during the process of the investigation; and (b) received the victim’s escape of the victim’s body and the Defendant’s escape.