The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

No. 1 of the seized evidence shall be from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged that, although the Defendant did not enter the victim’s house by examining the victim’s house through the windows with the third floor listed on the date and time and place stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and on the other hand, he did not enter the victim’s house, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts leading up to the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant, without any particular occupation, committed soup to the PC room and soup room, etc., with insufficient living expenses, committed an intrusion upon another person’s residence, thereby breaking the goods.

On January 1, 2016, the Defendant confirmed that there was no other person in the vicinity of the building located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around 17:20, and confirmed that there was no other person in the vicinity of the building, and opened a gas pipeline installed on the outer wall of the building, opened a window with the third floor of the building without locking, intruded into the residence of the victim D, and found that there was a stolen article by following the shot, etc. inside the inside the wall, and found that there was a stolen article, and did not bring about an attempted crime through the above window.

B. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty, even if there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant went to the physical activity of property by entering the victim’s house and leaving the victim’s house, in view of the fact that the Defendant was recognized to have invaded the victim’s house for the purpose of larceny, and that the victim’s house area was smaller and the time when the Defendant stayed in the victim’s house was considerable.