The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The seized Nos. 1 (No. 1) shall be extracted from the seized Nos. 1.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is the fact that the Defendant stopped a test wheeler car (hereinafter “the instant car”) in the vicinity of the charging station (hereinafter “instant charging station”) in order to resolve the use while driving at the time of the instant appeal, but there is no fact that the Defendant entered the instant charging office and stolen money and valuables.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority, the prosecutor applied for changes in the name of the defendant against habitual night structure to "Habitual larceny" in the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," but in light of the criminal facts and the amended applicable provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, this is considered to be a clerical error in "Habitual night structure larceny" and thus, it is immediately correct as above. Article 5-4 (6) and (1), and Article 330 of the "Article 33 of the Criminal Act" applies for changes in the applicable provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and Article 330 of the "Article 32 and Article 330 of the Criminal Act." Since this court permitted the changes in the name of the defendant to be tried

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal in the court of first instance.

Even if the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, we will examine the following.

3. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant tried to drive the instant car owned by the Defendant-friendly compulsory appearance E and to open the charging station in the same place on May 21, 2014, and to steal the money and valuables by using a refluoring pipe in the office, which was prepared in advance, and then failed to open the door of the safe; (b) as the Defendant tried to destroy the money and valuables by using a refluoring pipe in the place of the office, and then, (c) did not open the door of the safe, KRW 759,50, the cash owned by the victim F, which was located in the money and valuables received and disbursements in the surrounding area.