Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,200,00.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. In regard to the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant stated that he had an interview with a private teaching institute operated by the victim and did not interfere with the victim’s work by force.

Since the Defendant returned all the things brought by the Defendant to the lower judgment, the crime of larceny is not established.

B. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

C. The punishment of the first instance judgment on the unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court rendered a decision to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the judgment of the first instance.

Each of the judgments of the first instance against the accused shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of a prison term imposed under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the first instance cannot be maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and argument of mental or physical disorder is still subject to the judgment of this court

B. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s private teaching institute business by force, such as avoiding disturbance, while taking a bath at the private teaching institute operated by the victim D as stated in the first instance court’s decision.

The defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the second instance court on the judgment of the court below, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that he stolen the goods owned by the victim G as stated in the second instance judgment.

The defendant is found to have committed a crime.