The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not enter the “D church” for the purpose of theft of property at night, but entered the said church for the purpose of searching for toilets, and there is no fact that the Defendant stolen the number of statements and cash owned by the victim.

The Defendant did not enter the “H church” for the purpose of theft of property, but entered the said church for the purpose of searching for toilets.

Article 22(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The Defendant acquired the instant mobile phone owned by the victim” shall be deemed to have obtained the instant mobile phone on May 11, 2016, the date and time indicated in the facts charged, and not on May 12, 2016, but on May 12, 2016, and the Defendant shall receive the instant mobile phone from the State and keep it as the intent to return it to the State, and the Defendant was arrested at the police, and there was no intention to embezzled the instant mobile phone.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation of seized articles) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

가. 사실 오인 주장에 대한 판단 ⑴ 야간 건조물 침입 절도 및 야간 건조물 침입 절도 미수의 점에 대하여 ㈎ 재물을 절취할 목적으로 ‘H 교회’ 와 ‘D 교회 ’에 들어간 것이 아니라는 주장에 대하여 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하면, ① 피고인은 2016. 5. 7. 05:03 경 ‘H 교회’ 건물의 1 층 출입문으로 들어간 후 위 건물 1 층에서 단순히 배회하기만 한 것이 아니라, 위 건물의 지하층으로 내려가기도 하였고, 1 층에 있는 예배당의 시정장치를 해제하기까지 하면서 위 예배당에도 들어간 사실, ② 피고인은 위 교회 건물에서 나온 후 곧바로 그곳에서 약 70m 거리에 있는 ‘D 교회’ 건물로 이동한 사실, ③ 피고인은 같은 날 05:13 경 ‘D 교회’ 건물의 1 층 출입문으로 들어간 후 위 건물...