The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he attempted to commit a crime while he intruded into the victim's house front and stolen goods as stated in this part of the facts charged, the court below determined that this part of the facts charged was not proven, and thus acquitted. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles

2. Determination

가. 이 부분 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2014. 9. 30. 09:20경 인천 부평구 C 102호에 있는 피해자 D(45세)의 집에 이르러 집안에 사람이 있는 것을 확인하기 위해 현관문을 손으로 노크하여 집안에 인기척이 없는 것을 확인하고 건물 뒤쪽으로 나와 반쯤 열린 창문으로 침입하기 위하여 창문 오른쪽에 있는 가스배관을 오른손으로 잡고 발은 창문 아래쪽을 지나가는 가스배관 위를 밟아 몸을 지지하는 방법으로 타고 올라가 왼손으로는 방충망을 열려고 흔들다가 위 피해자를 깜짝 놀라게 하고, 창문을 열고 침입하려다 피해자에게 발각되어 그 뜻을 이루지 못하고 미수에 그쳤다.

B. The time of commencement of larceny in the judgment of the court below is deemed to be when the act of infringing another person's de facto control over property begins. Thus, even if the defendant intrudes upon another person's residence for the purpose of larceny during a day other than night, if it is not yet commenced, the crime of intrusion upon residence is only established, and it cannot be deemed that the commission of larceny begins (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1650, Sept. 8, 1992; 2009Do9667, Dec. 24, 2009). According to the records, the defendant can only recognize the fact that he attempted to intrude upon the victim's residence and escaped by being discovered to D.