A. Of the facts charged in the instant case by the prosecutor, the thief victim N made a statement that the correction device of the entrance door of the thief No. 8 or that it was not visible from the outside, such as windows, etc., and according to CCTV video data, the person who entered the corridor via the Do Public Notice Telecom No. 8 from August 29, 2012 to 10:000 on August 29, 2012 when the thief crime of the instant theft was committed was revealed to be outside the Defendant, and the d Public Notice No. 360,000 won in cash owned by the victim was sufficiently recognized, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On August 29, 2012, from around 00:30 to around 10:00, the Defendant: (a) within the 8 room of “D Public Notice Host” located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan; (b) after completing the victim N’s study, the Defendant opened a corrective door with Mink Turkey that was managed by the Defendant as the general secretary of the said Public Notice Hostel; and (c) cut off the cash of KRW 360,000 on the part of the victim who was in the part of the clothes.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s access to a corridor connected to the victim N’s investigation agency and the lower court’s legal statement, C’s police statement, and CCTV taken on the day of the instant case alone is only an indirect fact that: (a) it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed the theft of cash owned by the victim N; and (b) it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant committed the theft of cash owned by the victim N; and (c) it acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

(c).