A. In fact-findingK’s use of the electricity (hereinafter “the electricity of this case”) while living in a house on the ground of the wife population D (hereinafter “D”) until December 10, 2014 at the time when it is permissible to determine the facts regarding the theft of electricity, and the Defendant did not use the electricity of this case.

B. misunderstanding of facts as to the theft of fences and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant removed and brought about the PVC pipeline display stand (hereinafter “instant display stand”) installed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant fence”) within the iron fence (hereinafter “C house”) of the victim’s house located in the wife population C (hereinafter “C”) at the time of tolerance-si, and there was no fact that the instant fence was removed. The display stand brought about by the Defendant by demolishing the Defendant cannot be said to have been acquired by the victim during the auction process because it did not fall under the corresponding objects or accessories of C land or C, and the Defendant’s child, the subject of the installation, is entitled to ownership.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court on the part of the allegation of erroneous facts as to the former larceny; K, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, stated in the first instance court to the effect that “No later than October 11, 2014, the directors with all the goods in D Housing did not use the electricity thereafter; and even before the director’s flag, the electric line from the electrical container installed on the outside wall of D Housing is connected to the container used by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant container”); F used by the Defendant’s container from the end of November 2014 to the end of December 2014 to the end of December 201, 2014.