A. In fact, the Defendant merely carried a room to find a master person, and thus, the Defendant did not have an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.

B. In light of the fact that the injured party does not want the punishment of the defendant, the actual damage did not occur, and the defendant is living in a old life and is living with very economic power, even if the sentencing is found to be guilty against the illegal defendant, the punishment (300,000 won) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the Defendant left the D station with a bank set up by the victim E, and the C service personnel F in the D station without permission from the train.

“Until the Defendant reported and discovered the Defendant, the Defendant continued to follow the above door door above the platform’s stairs; F is the Defendant’s door to the Defendant; and the Defendant asked the Defendant for such door.

As a result, comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Defendant had a bank and again failed to get a subway back, the fact that the Defendant had the said bank as stated in the facts charged can be fully recognized.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered after the decision of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing.

In addition, in full view of the circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the defendant and all other factors of sentencing, including the defendant’s age, sex, career, family relation, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, criminal history, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable and the reasonable scope of discretion is too unreasonable in view of the circumstances asserted by the defendant on the grounds of appeal.