A. In fact-finding, the Defendant: (a) stated a philogramopon in the beerum for his/her own use; (b) the Defendant was aware of the fact that D had a phiopon on the beerum in the toilet; and (c) thus, there was no intention from the beginning to use phiopon in the way that D would have a phiopon carried a phiopon.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, eight months of imprisonment, and additional collection KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant has used the penphone as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, so the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of the fact that the Defendant had committed six times the same offense, and the repeated act during the period of repeated offense appears to have high risk of recidivism, and other various circumstances, such as the background, means and methods of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s age-oriented environment, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the records and arguments, are too unreasonable, given that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.