The guilty part shall be reversed.

On November 6, 2016, the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for larceny.

A. According to relevant evidence, such as the victim’s statement and CCTV images, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the relevant facts charged due to lack of evidence although it could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant stolen the victim L’s cellular phone on December 11, 2016.

B. The lower court’s unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny and one year and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes in its holding on November 6, 2016) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. According to the records of this case, the judgment of the court below omitted because the seized official approval color 7 mobile phone phone 1 (No. 1), 7 flusular phone 1 (No. 2), LGV 20 mobile phone 1 (No. 3) obtained from each larceny crime in the judgment of the court below, and it is obvious that the defendant should return to each of the above victims because the defendant's name and non-flus (No. 1, 3) and the victim U.S. are the stolen stolen goods acquired from each larceny crime in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on return, and such illegality affected the judgment.

Since the guilty part of the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained in this respect.

3. Judgment of the court below on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake on the acquittal portion

A. The summary of the facts charged at around 06:45, Dec. 11, 2016, the Defendant, as indicated in the lower judgment, went together with the Victim L, and stolen the Defendant’s mobile phone, which was not owned by the Victim, for the following reasons: (a) from around 06:45, to around 07:40 on the same day; and (b) from around 2, 2017 to around 07:40 on the same day.

B. The lower court’s judgment (i) bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial, and the conviction ought to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, it may be said that there is no such evidence.