The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was withdrawn by the Defendant on the date of the first trial of the trial of the first instance.

misunderstanding of facts (as to the attempted larceny of paragraph (1) of the crime in the case of 2020 Gohap19), the Defendant intended to remove the cable cable in hand at the date and place specified in this part of the facts charged, but there was no intention to steal another’s property, since the cable was known that it was a solid thing left without the main person.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, which found the guilty of this part of the charges.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part. The court below rejected the Defendant’s claim on the ground that the Defendant was guilty of this part of the charges on this ground, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant made efforts to remove the cable installed on the victim’s house and fence; (b) the Defendant returned to his match because the cable was fixed and removed; and (c) the Defendant stated at the time of the police investigation that “it was attempted to bring the cable up by hand, but the wire was not brought up due to no cut.” (d) At the time of the police investigation, the Defendant was found to have committed the attempted larceny in this part; and (b) the Defendant was aware of this part of the charges on this ground, on the ground that it was reasonable to deem that the Defendant had intentionally obtained stolen cables with the victim’s property and attempted larceny. (ii) In addition to the aforementioned circumstances as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the lower court lawfully adopted the evidence, namely, the Defendant’s right to remove the cable installed in the scene, on the victim’s surface 30-1.