A. The Defendant, as described in paragraph (1) of the lower judgment, did not steals one victim E’s wall and one mobile phone as stated in the lower judgment.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of loss of life or mental and physical weakness.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court and the trial court, i.e., the victim E was investigated by the police, and the victim E, upon completion of work at 1:0 on the day of the instant case, and her, Defendant, and f3 persons went to drink together. On the same day, the CCTV was carried out in the “D” restaurant at around 3 to 4:00 p.m., and was installed in the “D” restaurant, and the Defendant posted his identification card on the “influence” after destroying the said alcohol disease.

“The Defendant seems to have done the above action and attempted to have been covered by himself.”

“A person who was disqualified obtained a lost mobile phone with a mobile phone set aside,” and the place was in front of the aforementioned “D” restaurant.

The statement "," <2> The victim E appears to have no reason to state false damage to gather the defendant who had worked together in the "D" restaurant;3) The above CCTV images appear to have stolen one wallet containing the victim E's identification card, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have stolen the above wallet in the situation where the above wallet and the telephone is located together within the victim E's personal identification card, and ④ The defendant's act of opening the victim E's identification card on the "D" restaurant after confirming the above CCTV images is recognized.