A. The Defendant was aware that he was abandoned by the two winners of door-to-door gambling as indicated in the facts charged, and thus did not have the intention of larceny.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant found two persons of door-to-door box box set up on the street and brought them up and brought them up without confirming whether they have been abandoned or not. However, it is recognized that the defendant stated that he would have taken them up by asking whether he was an article to be discarded if he was the owner of a child. In light of the defendant's statement, it seems that the defendant did not recognize that the above two persons of door-to-door compensation could not have been abandoned, but would bring them up.

Therefore, the defendant's intention of larceny is recognized.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. Examining all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, family environment, background and result of the instant crime, and the subsequent circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is too too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal of this case is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.