The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant did not have the intention of larcenying structures at night, since it was merely an erroneous entry into a cafeteria which had stayed in the restaurant as stated in the facts constituting a crime, and there was no physical color of things to be stolen inside the restaurant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined that: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the Defendant: (i) although the Defendant was aware of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was confused with the instant restaurant, despite the fact that the Defendant had been living together, and the instant restaurant was located near, but the structure of the Maurel and the instant building was different; (b) it cannot be seen as a place where the Defendant could confuse with the accommodation in which the Defendant had been living; (c) the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence due to night residence theft, attempted larceny, etc. on November 26, 2012; and (d) the Defendant had the power of being sentenced to a fine of one million won by larceny at the Daejeon District Court on November 26, 2012, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant’s act of larceny was deemed to have been committed by the Defendant at night, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) it appears that the Defendant had infringed upon the Defendant’s dwelling or other’s house with the view at night.

In this case, the Doctrine, .