The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 1 to 3 shall be confiscated, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the larceny of the Defendant (a factual error and unreasonable sentencing) against the victim F of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant only stolen only KRW 41,000 in cash contained in the Defendant’s depository, and did not steals KRW 1,00,000 in cash contained in the victim’s money.

Dob. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to the effect that “violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes,” which is the name of the crime, is “Habitual larceny,” and “Articles 5-4(1) and 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act,” which are applicable provisions of the Criminal Act, “Articles 332, 329 and 342 of the Criminal Act,” and since the court permitted the amendment, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial by this court within the scope of the modified facts charged, and this is examined below.

3. 피고인의 사실오인 주장에 관한 판단 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 각 증거에 의하면, 피해자는 일관되게 이 사건 당시 거실의 금고에 보관하여 둔 돈뿐만 아니라 작은 방 벽에 걸어놓은 상의의 우측 주머니에 둔 현금 100만 원도 함께 도난당했다고 진술하고 있고, 현금 100만 원의 출처에 관해서도 매우 구체적으로 진술(증거기록 제181쪽)하고 있는데, 그 진술이 허위라고 볼 만한 사정이 보이지 않는 점, 피고인은 당시 피해자 F의 집에 침입한 후 마음이 급해서 금고에 있던 돈만 가지고 나왔다고 변소하나, 잠겨진 유리샷시문을 손괴한 후 위 집에 침입하여 집안에 사람이 없다는 것을 잘 알고...