A. The land A of this case, by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, was stolen from the wall A of which possession was lost due to a mistake of fact, and thus, possession should be regarded as the crime of embezzlement of stolen property, and was in the state of mental disorder or mental disorder.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles that affected the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, i.e., ① the victim went to the same building or the same building after the exchange was completed, and returned to the money exchange station again about 10 minutes with the knowledge that he left the wall, and ② the money exchange station in this case was operated by installing a porous glass hole inside the building and using it as a counter. In light of the fact that the land exchange station in this case was located immediately adjacent to the counter and under CCTV, it cannot be deemed that the possession of the victim or the money exchange station in this case can be recognized, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant made a mistake with the goods whose possession was lost.

In addition, in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, the criminal defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime.

It does not seem that there was or was a weak state.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the defendant has affixed the fact that he would bring on the instant Party A, and 3.50,000 won in cash exchanged with stolen UN was temporarily returned to the victim.