A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the facts charged Nos. 8 and 8 of the crime list as stated in the judgment of the court below were not a crime committed by the Defendant was erroneous and adversely affected by

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, ① the Defendant was prohibited twice at the police station’s “in the front of the AH coffee shop and the AI shop in the Haak Station,” and the unique names of the victims such as “O” are memoryed.

The Defendant recognized the crime by specifically mentioning the name of the victim of this part of the facts charged, and ② the Defendant, at the police around 14:00 on December 21, 2016, reported the photograph of the person taken before the AH coffee shop to him/her, and appears to have not different from that of the Defendant taken at the time of other crimes. ③ The Defendant consistently recognized the crime in the prosecution and the court of the lower court; ④ the Defendant consistently recognized the crime in the prosecution and the court of the lower court; ④ the Defendant could sufficiently move the person taken within 40 minutes near the calendar, which is the place of the crime committed again in the 8th order of the first instance judgment, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant received money and valuables from the damaged person, such as the crime list No. 8th in the judgment of the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (Supreme Court).