A. misunderstanding of facts 1) In the case of larceny against the victim C, the victim was only stolen the “small amount of cash,” and there was no specific amount of money that the Defendant stolen by the Defendant as “10,000 won” during the investigation process. The Defendant argued to the effect that there was no evidence to recognize that the market price of the damaged product was 50,000 won, among the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below against the victim C, about the “three of the 500,000,000,000 won of the market price.” However, in the latter case of larceny against the victim G, the above part of the criminal facts was corrected to “three of the 2,00,000,000,000 won of the market price of the 1,000,000,000 won of the market price of the 3th,000 won of the 3th,000 won of the 3th,000,000 won of the 3th,00.

Therefore, there was no intention of larceny or illegal acquisition in the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below as to the 1st theft claim as to the mistake of facts and the determination of the number of the stolen goods and the market price, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be acknowledged to have stolen approximately KRW 10,000 per capita from the victim C, and KRW 2,000 per capita from the victim G, and there are several evidences supporting the authenticity of the confession of the defendant, such as the statement of the victims.