A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant did not steals things like the criminal facts in the case of 2017 Gohap 1043 of the lower judgment.

A person who has been videoed in CCTV is not a defendant.

2) The Defendant did not sign L’s name in the written request for an adjudication, i.e., the criminal facts of the instant case, 2018 High 25.

A person who commits such an act shall be L.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The Defendant’s defense attorney at the lower court also asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part.

Accordingly, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that, in full view of the evidence, such as CCTV images recorded at the scene of the crime, the Defendant’s written statement in writing, and the voluntary submission of a written request for a trial, i.e., a written request for a trial, etc., the Defendant may steals goods or, i.e., obtain L’s signature in the written request for a trial, and then deliver them by means of an unmanned.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted by this court and the court below and the evidence duly admitted by this court, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

3. In determining the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant had been sentenced to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime at a multiple times.

The defendant committed each of the crimes of this case before three months have passed since he was released from prison, even during the period of repeated crime.

The defendant committed the larceny even before committing each of the crimes in this case and is arrested.