A. In fact, the Defendant, with the consent of the victim E (hereinafter “victim”), exchanged the Defendant’s wallets and the victim’s wallets, and did not steals the victim’s wall wall.

It is found that there was no consent of the victim in domestic affairs.

Even if the defendant thought that there was the consent of the victim, and exchanged the wall, there was no intention of larceny.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that the defendant is a larceny is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

2. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the following circumstances recognized by the records of this case, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant stolen the victim’s wall as stated in the facts charged with the intent to larceny and the intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts.

(1) The Defendant, from an investigative agency to the lower court, consistently recognized the fact that he/she stolen the victim’s wallet.

On the other hand, the Defendant used confessions at an investigative agency for the first time in the trial. “The Defendant reversed the previous confessions’ statement and denied the facts charged of the instant case, but it is difficult to easily understand the circumstances or reasons behind which the Defendant made the confessions’ statement once, and it is difficult to find any reasonable reasons or circumstances to support it.

(2) TheF who has witnessed a theft act of a defendant shall be in the court of first instance from an investigative agency.