The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and the Defendant did not receive the victim from the victim’s seat or the key to the vehicle from the victim on March 2014. There was no fact that the Defendant stolen the victim’s car and audio equipment as indicated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court, the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor, etc. at the Suwon District Court on September 9, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 24, 2016.

Therefore, not only the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) as stated in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, but also the crime of fraud, etc. of which judgment has become final and conclusive is concurrent crimes with the crime of the judgment of the court below and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which are related to concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for the crime of the judgment of the court below in consideration of equity

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined in the following paragraphs.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, namely, in the investigative agency and the lower court’s court, the victim transferred the said vehicle to the industrial company of the fluencies that the Defendant would repair the victim’s vehicle, and then delivered the vehicle keys to the Defendant.