A. In fact, there was no person who was killed in the front bus of the subway and was seated around the bank, and thus, he knew of the fact that there was no person who was aware of the fact.

There was no intention of theft, and there was a habitive wall of theft.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence examined in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the injured party, who is the owner of a bank, was seated below the front line where the damaged party was set up in the front line (the seat on the lower part of the front line).

The victim's possession of a bank has been maintained, and the defendant could also be aware of that fact, so the intention of theft is recognized.

If the defendant's criminal history, sex behavior, environment, etc. is considered, the judgment of the court below that recognized the habit of theft is also correct.

B. In light of the circumstances and the conditions of sentencing indicated in the reasoning of sentencing and the record, the lower court does not recognize that the sentencing is unfair.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.