The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The prosecutor (1) based on evidence submitted by the Defendant, including misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, etc., the fact that the Defendant stolen the goods from the victim’s residence on March 16, 2019 is sufficiently recognized. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable. (2) The Defendant (1) misjudgments of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not enter the victim’s residence on March 23, 2019.

D. It cannot be trusted that there is a procedural defect in the process of collecting DNA.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is unreasonable.

2. Determination of mistake of facts on March 16, 2019: (a) a theft on March 16, 2019; (b) a prosecutor’s appeal part on the prosecutor’s appeal can be

On March 16, 2019, a dump dump took place at the victim's home.

Around 19:15, the CCTV around 19:15 was found that the person who used a cap and received clothes in the color system seems to enter the victim's residence.

It seems that the defendant who seems to be a similar clothes 19:01, 18:36, 18:38, and 18:38, appears to be walking in the vicinity of the victim's residence.

From this point, the defendant was arrested who was residing in the parliamentary government.

On the other hand, when the defendant was in his former office, the defendant was on March 16, 2019 when he was on the franchisium, when he was on the franchisium at around 17:41, when he was on the franchisium, and franchis on the franchisium

The distance is far from the total entrance zone to the loan of this case.

At the time, the defendant used a mother and child and entered a lock with a locked color.

On the other hand, the victim's residence, which is the scene of crime, was found as a trace of the criminal.

Defendant

The size is the same as the result of comparison with the new appearance, and the same pattern is the same.

The defendant has failed to properly state the reason between the new zone and the loan of this case.

In addition, this fact is that the defendant simply denies the crime, and there are almost no other circumstances that can explain the defendant's act.