Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this shall not apply.

A. The instant stone purchased and brought into the Republic of Korea by Defendant A alone with his own funds, so it is not the ownership of the victim, but the ownership of Defendant A.

Therefore, this is not an object of larceny.

B. Defendant B is the Defendant’s possession of the landscaping stone of this case

Since there was a good reason to believe that there was an intentional act of theft against Defendant B.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Defendant

B is merely an aiding and abetting Defendant A to commit a theft, or a stolen stolen stolen by Defendant A, and it does not constitute a theft of the instant stone jointly with Defendant A.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that the victim D, who had no expertise in the landscape, gave advice to the victim D, at the time of purchasing the stone stone in Indonesia on May 2007, the victim came to know that the victim later received the stone from Indonesia to keep the stone without any particular security manpower or equipment, and that the victim knew that he had the stone imported from Indonesia as a result, he stolen the above stone stone from the victim by stealing it.

On September 6, 2015, the Defendants, together, stolen the cargo vehicle using four heavy equipment, which was owned by the victim and was located at the above hole around September 13:00.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

(c)

A thorough examination is conducted in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court.