A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

A. In the case of certain damaged articles against which the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts by the prosecutor denies the theft, considering the fact that the defendant's fingerprints was discovered at the place of crime and the victim's statement about the damaged articles, the above damaged articles should also be deemed to have been stolen, but the court below rejected the victim's statement, etc. without reasonable grounds and acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges. The judgment of the court below contains an error of law by

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is too less or less unreasonable.

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

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the charges (1) at around 16:00 on June 20, 2014, the Defendant stolen and stolen the Defendant with property worth KRW 3,850,000,000, total of KRW 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

(2) On July 19, 2014, around 10:10 on July 19, 2014, the Defendant, at the Victim G located in E in E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E

(3) At around 16:50 on June 24, 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed theft with the victim I’s house located in Suwon-si J; (b) Damond; (c) Damond; (b) divers in swine shape; (c) 1 in the shape of Seongbuk-do; and (d) 10 in cash and 220,000 in cash.

B. The lower court’s determination does not seem to have given special attention to prevent the Defendant from having his fingerprints, etc., in light of (1) the victim’s fingerprints and satisfaction is found in the victim’s house kitchen with respect to the larceny in relation to the victim C, and the Defendant does not seem to have been able to prevent the Defendant from having his fingerprints, etc.