A. The misunderstanding of facts (abundance) took advantage of a mobile phone and returned it, and only the right to report to the police box that is indispensable for the victim's occupation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the thief guilty is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of thief, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records and changes of the instant case on the assertion of thief, namely, ① according to the victim’s statement, even though he was aware of the influence of alcohol, he was seated in the front play room before the house, and any woman was forced to use a mobile phone so that he could have left the thief as they were left (Evidence No. 23 of the evidence record). ② A witness who testified that the Defendant used the victim’s mobile phone and she got off the mobile phone in his hand and she got off the cell phone, and the male (victim) followed approximately 5-6 meters after she got off the cell phone, which was called “I would have brought about why I would bring about.” (Evidence No. 31 of the evidence record). ③ At the time of the initial police statement, the Defendant did not have brought about any sound from the cell phone next to the police box.

In light of the fact that the defendant made a statement (Article 46, 48 of the evidence record) and changed his/her statement as the grounds for appeal in the trial of the party, etc., the fact that the defendant stolen his/her mobile phone from the victim can be recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the fact that the damaged thief crime of this case was returned to the victim is favorable to the defendant, and that the defendant repeated the crime even during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and that there are many criminal records of the same kind.

(b) other.