A. Fact-finding is that the Defendant, as a misunderstanding of the facts, brought about three tables and fifteen chairs owned by the victim (hereinafter “the instant damaged article”).

However, the defendant was only aware that all the groups have dumped the damaged article of this case, and there is no intention to commit larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact, thief’s criminal intent refers to the perception that another person’s ploss under another person’s possession will transfer them to himself or to a third person’s possession. Thus, if another person renounced his ownership and acquired it by mistake as a stolen object, it is difficult to recognize the criminal intent of larceny unless there is a justifiable reason to mislead the other person (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do971, Jan. 17, 1989). In light of the above legal principle, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, namely, ① the damaged article was purchased by the victim 1-2 years before 1-2 years before 1-2 years before the day before the day of this case, and the victim operating E appears to have used and managed the damaged article of this case (see Articles 8 through 10 of the evidence record). The damaged article of this case itself appears to have no particular defect in the damaged article of this case.

Defendant also recognized (Evidence No. 24 of the evidence record) and 2 The Defendant knew that part of the damaged goods of this case was a prone prone with a yellow poster attached.

However, according to the victim's statement, the Stick attached to the Speaker seems to have been a warning Stick that the Stick will throw away garbage, which seems to have been a matter that could have been sufficiently verified if the defendant paid a little attention (the case in this case).