A. As to the larceny of a thief, the Defendant did not have any intention or intention to acquire unlawful larceny.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's theft was erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The judgment of the court below against the defendant who was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below also asserted the same purport as the assertion of mistake of the above facts, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion by giving a detailed statement on the column of the evidence. In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is without merit.

B. In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair merely because the number of days of detention exceeds the period of custody of the fine, and thus, the Defendant is not likely to bear the actual fine or be detained in the workhouse. The Defendant’s failure to appear in the court after filing an appeal only, and the summons of this court is limited to the appearance of this court.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the above sentencing is unfair is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.