A. On January 19, 2014, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the larceny charge among the facts charged in this part of the charges, and found the Defendant not guilty on the part with respect to the specific part as part of the number of stolen food rights to be 54.

In this regard, only the defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts and illegality of sentencing, and the prosecutor did not appeal the acquittal part on the grounds. Therefore, the acquittal part may be transferred to the appellate court according to the indivisible principle of appeal, but it has already been exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties.

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be followed with respect to the non-guilty portion of the reasons, and it is not judged separately.

B. On January 31, 2016 and February 6, 2016, the first instance court acquitted each of the charges of larceny on this part.

In this regard, both the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal. Accordingly, the acquittal portion is divided into the expiration of the appeal period, so it is not included in the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, while serving as security guards in C building, was holding a part of the victim D’s health examination customers issued a paper ticket and used in a restaurant and kept a 54 chapter remaining after using it at the cafeteria, and there was no theft of the right of meals as stated in this part of the facts charged.

B. Sentencing 1 Sentencing 200,000,000,000 won, which is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as stated in the summary of the evidence on the grounds of the conviction, and in particular, according to CCTV images, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant entered the headquarters office of the victim’s foundation at the time of the instant case, with an influence right, and that the Defendant stolen it.

Therefore, it is true.