All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the circumstantial evidence of the prosecutor’s (1) misunderstanding of the facts (with regard to the portion of the crime without fault), the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of each of the charges on this part of the charges is unjustifiable, on March 31, 2018, on the following grounds: (a) inasmuch as the Defendant intruded an apartment at the Yangju city on March 31, 201 and stolen goods owned by the

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On March 31, 2018, the lower court determined as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts in the facts charged of this case. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (thief) among the facts charged of this case, the vehicles on which the Defendant was aboard at the time of emergency arrest were discovered near the place of the crime of this case at the time of the crime of this case, taking full account of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, various things that appear as the tool of the larceny crime of this case were stored inside the above vehicle, and similar to the color and shape of the mother-and-child color and the shape of the Defendant entered into the storage box, which were recorded in CCTV, were similar to those of the larceny suspect recorded in CCTV, and thus, there is no doubt that the Defendant committed the crime of larceny as described in the facts charged. However, in this case where the Defendant consistently denied his own crime, the Defendant did not directly intrude into nearby CCTV, and there is no evidence or evidence that the Defendant directly intruded into an apartment, as a suspect.

It is difficult to conclude other evidence submitted by a prosecutor alone.