A. Of the handbags Nos. 4 in the first instance court’s attached list No. 1, 13 directly received by the Defendant was entered in the company, and the Defendant did not obtain pecuniary benefits by offering collateral or disposing of it. As to the larceny, the Defendant only stolen a total of 76 handbags, and did not steal the total of 210 million won of the market value of handbags as indicated in the facts charged.

B. The first instance sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court of first instance as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant did not enter the 13 companies directly received from the Handbags Nos. 4 in the annexed list of crimes in the court of first instance, and acquired property benefits by offering collateral or disposing of them. It can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed the theft by inserting the total of 210 million market prices of 112 million won in the company's warehouse from the company's warehouse and inserting it in a gambling room. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. Although there is no previous conviction exceeding a fine as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, a considerable number of damaged articles appears to have been returned, the circumstances favorable to the defendant, on the other hand, the Defendant committed the instant crime by taking advantage of the trust relationship with the victim or his business partner, and the fact that the Defendant was punished for a similar crime, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant. In full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, criminal records, motive and background of the instant crime, method of occurrence, damage amount, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, the first instance court’s punishment is not unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is not reasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant.