All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The respective sentences of the lower court (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year) are too unreasonable.

B. As to the part of innocence of the first judgment of the lower court on the erroneous determination of facts (not guilty part) 1, the Defendant infringed on the first floor among the three-story houses located in Gangnam-si D, which were owned by the victim as shown in this part of the charges between August 9, 2018 and August 17, 2018.

B) In relation to the part on acquittal of the reason for theft of the second judgment, the Defendant stolen three rights of the victim, as stated in the date and place indicated in the foregoing paragraph (A), and as stated in this part of the charges, at the same time and place.

2) Each sentence of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment: one year of imprisonment with prison labor and one year of imprisonment with prison labor) is deemed unfair. 2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the Defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against each of the above two appeals cases. The first and the second judgments on the Defendant were sentenced respectively, and the Defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against each of the above two appeals cases. The court decided to jointly deliberate on each of the above two appeals cases. Since each of the offenses against the Defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the guilty portion of the first and the second judgment on the second judgment ( insofar as the conviction portion of the lower judgment is reversed, the acquittal portion of the grounds of the judgment on the part of the

No person can be maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant in this part of the facts charged is owned by the victim’s children who would be injured by the victim from August 9, 2018 to August 17, 2018.