The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the facts constituting a crime of mistake of facts, the Defendant possessed the victim B’s property at the time of arrest, but this was merely purchased from L and acquired stolen goods, not the Defendant.

Criminal facts

In relation to paragraphs 2 and 3, the Defendant did not intrude into the victim E and H house, but did not intrude with the purpose of theft of property.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the above facts charged of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court regarding the crime No. 1. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, determined that the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s assertion and that the Defendant stolen the victim’s property, by specifically explaining the facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 3 through 4, supra). In addition to the circumstances in the lower court’s reasoning, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant may acknowledge the fact that the Defendant stolen the damaged goods. Accordingly, the Defendant stated that the Defendant was “the Defendant received as stolen goods” by the police officer K in charge of the process of acquiring the gold Ban (No. 48 of the trial record), which is the damaged goods of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 48 of the trial record), and in the prosecutor’s investigation, the lower court stated that “the Defendant purchased the gold Ban and gift certificates of this case from L,” (Evidence No. 2228 of the record).