beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment of the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable for the Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).
B. In light of the legal principles, as long as the Defendant violated the original room 202 in order to steal the property and went through the part between the studio and the vesium, the Defendant infringed on the original room of this case and started to execute the crime of larceny of robbery of robbery of robbery of robbery of robbery of this case. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charge of robbery of robbery of this case on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the act including the realistic risk leading to the entry into a residence was commenced. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the entry into a residence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unjust sentencing is unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The court below found the defendant's assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the part of the defendant's case No. 1 of this case's 2nd floor 202 of this case's studio 202 of theft of robbery of robbery of robbery of robbery of robbery of robbery of robbery since the defendant's act alone cannot be said to have commenced the preliminary stage of night residential intrusion larceny of larceny of robbery of robbery of this case, and thus, it found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged as to robbery of robbery of robbery of robbery of robbery of robbery of this case on the ground that it cannot be said that the act of the defendant does not lead to actual danger of infringing the peace of dwelling of this case's 2nd floor 202 of this case's 1st floor 2nd floor 2nd. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.