A. As to the larceny of the victim C among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was merely bringing about the discovery of mobile phones and the discovery of the principal offender, and there was no intention of theft.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged to the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds stated in its reasoning by finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s aforementioned determination can be justified and acceptable, and there was an error of law

It does not seem that it does not appear.

B. Considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable even if there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the lower judgment’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case are considered.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure). However, in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, "1. 19" in the third sentence below is dismissed as "1. 28."