The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the Defendant’s appeal is as follows: ① With respect to the Defendant’s attempted to larceny at night against the victim M at least 2 times, a list of crimes attached to the original judgment: (a) the Defendant opened an apartment window and entered into the house in order to cause sound; and (b) thus, the victim’s intrusion upon the victim’s residence.

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and (2) even if not, in light of the fact that the Defendant committed a misunderstanding and endeavor to agree with the victims, and that the goods re-victimd once a year indicated in the same crime list were recovered, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant is too unreasonable (a year, June, and confiscation).

2. In case of intrusion upon a human’s residence at night for the purpose of theft of another’s property, it shall be deemed that the criminal act of larceny at night as prescribed in Article 330 of the Criminal Act has already started at the stage of intrusion upon the residence, and even if it does not enter the residence, it shall be deemed that the act was committed including an objective danger of infringing the peace of the residence, if it is possible to view that the act was committed, at the stage of intrusion upon the residence;

I see that it is.

Therefore, in a case where the defendant invadedd on an apartment and stolen things, and started specific acts to intrude, such as opening or about to open the window of an apartment under the intention of stealinging, the defendant started to commit an intrusion on residence at night, and thereby, the defendant started to commit a crime of larceny.

It is reasonable to view it.

② On the other hand, the Defendant had been already punished by imprisonment and fine due to the same kind of crime, etc. over several times. However, the Defendant constitutes a same repeated crime, and there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the judgment of the lower court was rendered.

In addition to other circumstances asserted by defense counsel, the conditions of sentencing, such as the age and environment of the defendant.