The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant who misleads the gist of the grounds for appeal may not be deemed to have intruded on a structure, since he entered the password that the victim informed to him and entered into the store that he operated jointly with the victim.

On the other hand, the defendant had no intention to acquire illegal profits since the victim notified the victim in advance of his/her intention to secure his/her claim against the defendant with the wind that the victim has continuously refused to pay the settlement of accounts between the victim and the victim during the liquidation of the partnership relationship.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, one year of suspended sentence, and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant argued that the aforementioned facts were identical to the assertion of mistake in fact in the lower court.

The court below found the defendant guilty on the facts in the case of this case on September 26, 2014, prior to the crime of this case, on the grounds that the defendant had the goods owned by the defendant and was in a perfect condition at the store operated by the victim, the victim did not consent to the act of the defendant, and it is difficult to view that the defendant is unable to preserve his claim for the settlement of accounts by the legal procedure. In light of the records and the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just.

In addition, the following additional circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, as long as the defendant was removed from the above store and left the liquidation procedure only after the partnership relationship between the defendant and the victim was terminated at the time of the crime of this case, the victim did not change the entrance door password of the above store.

(b)if any;