A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts as to attempted larceny and misunderstanding of legal principles, there were only one copy of a healthy horse, one copy of a total of two copies, and one copy of a thief.

The Defendant thought that the Defendant would have to transfer one minute of the horses used to a veterinary hospital, but it could cause the Defendant to take out one minute of the healthy horses because of narrow inside.

Therefore, only the defendant taken the part of the healthy horse at the end, and there was no intention to steal it or intention to illegally obtain it.

B. The Defendant alleged self-defense against the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which caused the victim to set up his body by hand and spread his body in order to prevent the victim from exercising violence, constitutes self-defense.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to attempted larceny, namely, the Defendant stated in the written statement prepared on the day of the instant case that “the victim would not be aware of part of the last two pieces and would recover the horses and would have come from the sea where the victim would come to the sea where.” The Defendant stated in the police that “the victim would not have paid the horses, and would like to bring the horses again,” and the Defendant stated in the prosecutor’s office that “the horses would not go to the victim’s possession or surrounding areas, if the horses would not go to the victim’s end, they would not go to the victim’s end,” and stated in the prosecutor’s office that “the Defendant, the father of the Defendant, “D, and E” did not sell the horses to the victim.”