The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

(b) the defendant;

A. Of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below, the larceny part is not a criminal defendant.

The defendant is limited to using a card that is contained in the victim's wall from a arbitrae.

The court below erred in this part of the facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of the Defendant in the relevant legal doctrine ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no such proof, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, the conviction cannot be rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). 1) The summary of the thief charges against the Defendant is as follows: the Defendant’s thief on July 24, 2016, from the warehouse of the festival site installed within K at around 201:0,000, 200 won in cash, and one victim’s possession (hereinafter “the instant embankment”).

2) The Defendant came to the lower court’s judgment and recognized other facts charged as a substitute, but denied the suspicion that this part of the facts charged is merely the victim’s walleted from another person.

It is true that the defendant's appeal is easily acceptable in light of the empirical rule.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, this part of the facts charged was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

subsection (b) of this section.

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

(1) The defendant is arrested in possession of a scze card and cash owned by the victim.