2) The Defendant (1) was convicted of the Defendant, even though he merely moved a container owned by the victim at a volume of 300 meters according to the order to remove illegal objects occupying and using the road, and did not steals.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. 1) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant is justifiable.

(1) The fact that the Defendant, other than the owner, moved the instant container in accordance with the purport of the order to remove it does not coincide with the interest.

In addition, the person in charge of the J company entrusted with the management and operation of the IC Highway seems to have not identified the owner of the instant container at the time, and had not ordered the Defendant to remove the container at the container entrance. (2) The instant container was originally owned by the Defendant and again sold it to the victim after N was purchased (No. 36-37 pages of the investigation record). The Defendant stated to the effect that, at the time of the two-time interrogations, the victim was not aware of the instant container trading contract, and was transferred for the purpose of his/her use (No. 29 pages of the investigation record). In light of this, it may be recognized that the Defendant had intended to obtain the instant container from the Defendant.

③ The Defendant appears to have cut the locks of the instant container and replaced it with a new locks (27 pages of investigation records). In this respect, the Defendant’s statement that the instant container was simply moved according to the intent of the order to remove the container was made.