A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not know that a stolen vehicle was stored in a container brought by A. Since the stolen vehicle was not involved in the process of storing it in the container, there was no intention to keep the stolen vehicle in the container, and there was no conspiracy to keep the stolen vehicle A and the stolen vehicle.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) in the first instance of unfair sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The first instance court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by stating in detail the Defendant’s assertion and judgment at the end of the part of the evidence of the judgment, which are the same as the grounds for appeal of this case.

Examining the above judgment of the first instance in comparison with the records, the first instance judgment is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant in the judgment of the first instance.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant was punished for a suspended sentence for the following reasons: (a) the instant crime was committed during the period of the suspension of the execution of the same kind; and (b) there was no special circumstance to mitigate the sentence of the first instance after the sentence of the first instance was rendered; and (c) there was no other special circumstance to reduce the sentence of the first instance after the sentence of the first instance; (d) comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, family environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the first instance sentence cannot be deemed to be excessively unreasonable.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.