A. As to the Defendant’s charge Nos. 1 and 2 of the 2016 order 325 order, the Defendant did not have any date or place indicated in this part of the facts charged, and thus, did not commit an attempted theft of things at the time.

D. The Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, in relation to Section 3 of the criminal facts of the 2016 order 325 order, has taken possession of the goods as stated in this part of the facts charged, but it is held that at the time that the Defendant’s wife would sell clothes to the

On the other hand, the calculation cost was calculated by misunderstanding that he was on the first floor of the department store, and there was no intention to steal goods.

D. The date and time stated in this part of the facts charged, and the fact that the Defendant, in the location of the crime in the instant case, had a brupt in contact with the victim K’s hand, and that the Defendant opened a brupter of the victim and attempted to steals the articles in said case.

B. The punishment of the first instance court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The evidence duly examined and adopted by the first instance court on the argument as to the assertion of mistake of facts in the first instance case No. 2016 order 325 case. In particular, the victim E, G and witness L appeared as a witness at the court of first instance in the process of witnessing the fact that the Defendant tried to steal goods at each date and place specified in this part of the facts charged and stated to the effect that the witness at the time when he testified to the effect that the Defendant was clear, and that the first instance judgment on the credibility of each statement made by the victims and witness was clearly erroneous.

In light of the fact that there is no special circumstance to see, the Defendant attempted to steal each product at each time and place specified in the facts charged.