A. The Defendant was not guilty of larceny as stated in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by mistake of facts.

B. At the time of each of the crimes of this case, the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak due to the decrease in recognition function.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the records of this case, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as a statement, investigation report, etc. of the thief of this case, which was examined as to the thief of this case’s thief of this case’s thief of this case’s thief

Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

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

B. In full view of the background and process of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, which was duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, whether mental or physical loss or mental weakness was committed, even though the Defendant suffers from depression and saves due to old age, it does not appear that the Defendant did not have the ability or weak ability to discern things at the time of the instant case.

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

(c)

It is recognized that there are no criminal records and criminal records of the same kind in excess of the fine, and that the health conditions of the elderly do not seem good.

However, the crime of this case was committed five times by the defendant, which stolen the property of the victims who operate the store in the underground shopping mall, and the nature of the crime was committed.