A. The Defendant of mistake of facts was entering the place as stated in No. 2 of the annexed Table No. 2 from among the facts of the 2014 Highest 1037 of the judgment of the court below, and did not steals goods.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts1) In a criminal trial, the formation of a conviction is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, but it is possible to be based on indirect evidence, and indirect evidence is not individually or separately assessed, and it must be evaluated in a comprehensive manner with mutual relation with each other in all respects, and must undergo a thorough and inconsistent argument. The probative value of evidence is left to judge's free judgment, but the judgment should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should not be reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and it is not allowed to dismiss evidence to be found as probative value by causing a suspicion without any reasonable ground. The term "reasonable doubt" refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of a fact inconsistent with facts based on logical and empirical rules, not all questions and faiths, and it should be included in 204 or abstract grounds for finding facts that are favorable to the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du20420, supra.).