A. At the time of misunderstanding the fact (the Defendants, not guilty part), the victim’s instant smartphone was placed in a place far away from the table to a certain degree so that Defendant B can have a house outside the hands, and thus, Defendant A could easily understand the fact that the instant smartphone was not owned by Defendant B, but left by others.

그리고 피해자가 다시 현장에 찾아와서 이를 찾기 위하여 두리번거리는 것을 피고인들이 눈치챘을 것이다.

Therefore, the Defendants had the intent to commit joint larceny.

must be viewed.

B. Improper sentencing (Defendant B, guilty part) sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court found the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the lower court, namely, ① Defendant A was seated with Defendant B in the D points indicated on the day of the instant case (hereinafter “instant store”), and found that drinking water and drinking water was on Defendant B’s seat, and notified Defendant B of this fact. At that time, Defendant B did not speak Defendant A that the instant smartphone was not himself/herself, and attempted to contact with the owner by operating the instant smartphone, or did not request the employees of the sales center to find the owner of the instant smartphone while continuing to communicate with Defendant A without having requested the owner of the instant smartphone to find it (in the meantime, Defendant B was not certain from the lower court to Defendant B’s seat on his/her back page, and was not certain (in the meantime, Defendant B was not aware that the instant smartphone was not the Defendant A.).

On the other hand, Defendant A stated in the court below on the smartphone of this case.