The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the court below held that the victim was in a de facto control of the building of this case, and that the defendant was aware of whether the lease problems of the building of this case were resolved, and that the defendant consented to the entry of the building of this case by the victim.

The defendant's appeal concerning mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is not accepted because such entry cannot be viewed as a legitimate act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding “a structure managed” in the crime of intrusion upon a structure, the presumption consent of the victim, and the legitimate act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds of its ruling, determined that the items owned by the victim in the instant building constituted at least the objects of larceny from the perspective of the victim, and that the Defendant’s intent to illegally obtain them is also recognized, and rejected the Defendant’s appeal concerning mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine disputing such determination

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding property and intent to acquire illegal property in larceny, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed on the grounds of unfair sentencing, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, a more minor sentence is imposed