A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A. Although the Defendant examined the bank that had been placed on the market frame, there was no special object, and the contact information with the content of the wall cannot be known, the Defendant was placed on the alley again.

In addition, evidence that is appropriate to the fact that there were other valuables than walled in a household is only the statement of the victim, and the victim's statement that he entered the house by leaving the bank containing valuables in the way of taxation and calculation of tax base is difficult to believe, and since the distance between the point where the defendant was confirmed to have the bank and the place where the victim left the bank is considerably different, it is possible for the defendant to learn that the third party has abandoned the bank again.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the defendant confirmed the contents of the wall while moving the victim's bank; ii) the victim stated in CCTV images as they are; ii) the victim stated in detail material things in a bank; iii) the victim reported to the police immediately after becoming aware of the loss of the wall; iv) the victim made a false statement about the fact of damage, including the goods in a bank; and (v) the victim did not have any circumstances to make a false statement about the fact of damage, including the goods in a bank. In full view of the evidence presented by the court below, it is justified to find the guilty of the charge of this case by taking into account the evidence in its holding.

Therefore, the defendant.