A. Regarding the larceny of mistake of facts, the defendant did not steals the items owned by the victim F [the statement No. 3 (Larceny No. 1 to 19], and the above items are only objects donated or leased to the defendant by the victim F or those directly purchased by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant alleged that he is identical to the above assertion of misunderstanding of facts in the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. Thus, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. Although there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant had no record of criminal punishment differently, and that the victims of the larceny have temporarily returned to the victim F, each of the instant crimes was committed by the defendant by taking advantage of the fiduciary relationship with the victims who met at the parents' meeting, and by taking advantage of the criminal background, method, relationship with the victims, etc., it is very poor that the crime was committed; the considerable portion of the damage amount of the fraudulent crime was not recovered; the victims wanted to have strong punishment against the defendant; and other factors indicated in the instant argument, such as the defendant's age, character, environment, motive, motive and consequence, size, frequency, victims, relationship with the victims, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3...