A. The Defendant, by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, entered the G Coindo C (C) vehicle owned by the victim F (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) for the sole purpose of harming the trend, and did not have the intention of larceny.

In addition, there is no fact that articles have been behind or acted in the vehicle.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it excludes all possible doubts, and the reasonable doubt here refers to the reasonable doubt of the probability of a fact that is not compatible with the facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than including any doubt and correspondence, and thus, it cannot be said that the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility is included in a reasonable doubt.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do2221 Decided June 25, 2004; 2004Do362 Decided April 15, 2005, etc.). The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

At the time of committing the crime, the temperature at Dongducheon-si was not a 14th degree of video image, and even if the Defendant scam subjectively, it is not reasonable to enter a vehicle owned by another person without permission for himself/herself for the damage to the scam by the scam. (In addition, the Defendant was also seated on the driver’s seat, not on the scam chief or back seat convenient for the Defendant to locked). In addition, it was intended to use the tools, scams, etc. owned by the Defendant in the vicinity of the instant vehicle, and as alleged by the Defendant, it was intended to use them for house repair or new walls.