However, the defendant denies the criminal intent of theft by asserting that it was between the report and the victim's physical exercise, not by intention or intention, but by misunderstanding that the physical exercise was one's own.

It is somewhat doubtful that the new launch in the restaurant is changed due to the mistake that the new appearance of the other is similar to that of its own, and the defendant has reported the change of the movement of this case at all different whites from that of his restaurant as soon as he reported to the restaurant. However, in light of the following circumstances known by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the defendant was aware that the movement of this case was remaining at the time when he reported the sports of this case.

It is difficult to see

and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the intention of theft.

① The Defendant, as a model identical to the instant sportsization, owns the same colors and shapes, is likely to mislead the instant sportsization as one’s own.

② The difference between the gymization owned by the Defendant and the gymization of this case appears to be old since the gymization of the Defendant’s ownership is more old, and is about 270m fakes with a greater of 5mm compared to the gym of this case, so it is sufficient to find out the degree of difference if there is a person who does not do not do so.

(3) The defendant, except for a one-time drinking driving, works for about 13 years at a cooking operation company without criminal records, shall have income of at least 3.2 million won per month.