Defendant shall be sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of one million won.

A. Defendant (1) is guilty of Defendant (1)’s mistake of fact (1): The Defendant did not steals a boomed and piracy contained in vinyl.

② On the second instance judgment, it is because the Defendant brought the victim's bank to the victim's bank was granted the victim's permission.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, and the second instance judgment: fine of 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. At night, there is commencement of larcenying on night structures, insofar as the Defendant intrudes on a corridor connected to the one in which the general public’s access to the larceny was prohibited at night by using an elevator for employees, insofar as the Defendant intentionally intrudes into the corridor connected to the one in which the general public’s access to the larceny was prohibited.

must be viewed.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance rendered on the defendant's ex officio determination, and the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of second instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the acquittal of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the prosecutor filed each appeal against the acquittal of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court of second appeal jointly

The first conviction of the original judgment and the second conviction of the original judgment against the accused are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed. Thus, the first conviction of the original judgment and the second judgment cannot be maintained as they are.

However, even if there are the above reasons for reversal of authority, the argument of mistake and misunderstanding of the legal principles between the defendant and the prosecutor is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by each court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, was found to have stolen the victim C’s bags, such as the Defendant’s intrusion into the first floor of G hotel, the first floor of G hotel, and the second floor, and the victim C’s bags, as stated in the judgment of the second instance.