A. Error of facts, the Defendant, while moving around June 22, 2014, said that “the Defendant would use” for the Defendant, resulting in each of the damage as indicated in the judgment below.

Therefore, the defendant's taking of the damaged goods in the decision of the court below does not constitute a theft, and the defendant's intention or intent of unlawful acquisition is not recognized.

However, since the court below found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case based on each of the statements made by E and victim D without credibility, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the legal principles, the police investigation against the defendant is illegal investigation, and the police interrogation protocol against the defendant was forged, and thus, the admissibility of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant is not recognized. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case by adopting and investigating evidence without admissibility. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The defendant was in custody of each damaged article in the house owned by the defendant, all of which was leased to the victim at the time of this case

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the charges of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the part of the statement directly related to the crime of this case, such as the statement by the victim D, the investigation agency of the victim D, and the statement by the court below as to the fact that the victim D did not state that each damaged article was used in the judgment of the court below, and that the victim D knew that each damaged article was lost and asked the defendant about it.