The guilty portion of the judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eleven months.

The judgment of the court of first instance is not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. A. On March 8, 2016, a person appearing in a video recorded on March 8, 2016, and on March 10, 2016, appears to be very similar to the Defendant’s mother and child, which was recorded on March 10, 2016.

3. 8. In light of the fact that the mother appearing in the photographed image appears to be the same, in particular, the goods of the cart type that the defendant towed are deemed to have been the same as the person presumed to have towed in the video taken on March 8, 2016, etc., the fact that the defendant stolen goods by intrusion on a building even on March 8, 2016 is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which pronounced guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court in the sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of facts: (i) the victim’s statement and its statement statement were not consented to the defendant as evidence; (ii) it is not admissible as evidence because the authenticity of the formation was not acknowledged by the original statement made by the original statement; (iii) it is not clearly confirmed by comparing the content of the defendant with that of the defendant although the person presumed to be the offender was taken in the CCTV video and photographs; and (iv) the clothes or parallel color of the person presumed to be the offender is distinguishable from the clothes suffered by the defendant from the date of the occurrence of the instant case at the time of arrest as a flagrant offender; and in particular, it appears that the whole length or form of the victim’s statement and statement statement were different from those of the clothes suffered by the defendant at the time of arrest as a flagrant offender; and (iv) the defendant did not possess the damaged goods at the time of arrest.