The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant was aware of the victim’s bags as F, which was the first f, and merely cited it as a thief, but did not have any intention of larceny.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the facts charged in this case’s judgment are as follows: around November 25, 2015, at the D cafeteria located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around November 16:10, the Defendant: (a) stolen the Defendant, with one verification-type one bank located in the victim’s seat, including one key, one modern credit card, one fladice, etc., in which the surveillance of the victim E was neglected; and (b) the Defendant stolen the Defendant’s vehicle at the D cafeteria located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The lower court convicted the Defendant and F of the facts charged in this case by comprehensively taking account of each police interrogation protocol, E preparation statement, police seizure protocol, and investigation report (CCTV’s video pictures at the time of committing the crime).

B. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, the defendant completed meals at the time and place stated in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below, and cited one room from the victim’s seated next seat, and on the same day, the police officer identified the defendant as a criminal through CCTV images of a restaurant, and the fact that the F, who was a first-hand person, was arrested of the defendant by putting the phone number remaining to handle cash receipts at the time of calculating the defendant.

D. However, as to whether the Defendant had had the intention of larceny, the recognition of conviction in the criminal trial and the health care for the Defendant should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so that the prosecutor’s proof may lead to such conviction.