A. In fact, the Defendant did not have the intention of larceny at the time he had H bring 63 share of the 63 shares of the thief.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the victim knew from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court that there was no part of the ornamental trees planted in the victim dry field on March 25, 2016, and asked the Defendant to ask him of the fact that he did not have any part of the upper trees planted in the victim dry field, so the Defendant, “I am back to the Defendant’s dry field after cutting down the trees by cutting the trees at the victim dry field.”

around February 2016, the Defendant stated that “A victim had already received an amount equivalent to the price for the 3rd repair tree owned by the victim but did not inform the victim of the fact that the victim had received the said price at the time when the victim had contacted the Defendant.” ② A landscaping business entity paid the price for the above 3rd repair tree to the Defendant on February 15, 2016. Before the instant case was entered into force, he was aware that the above 3rd repair tree was the Defendant’s tree, and for that reason, he stated that the Defendant was the Defendant’s tree. ③ The father C of the above G stated that the above 3rd repair tree was the Defendant’s tree, and there was no contact with the Defendant at the time of the victim’s dry field, and himself was aware of the above 4th repair tree as the Defendant’s tree before the Defendant was to be another person, and such talk was made at the investigative agency after the victim’s dry field.”