A. Cheongba and Titts indicated in the facts charged of this case are donated to the Defendant by the injured party, and theft is not established, since they are owned by the Defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court against an unfair defendant in sentencing (4 months of imprisonment, 4 months of exchange) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of theft was acknowledged in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s failure to steal the clothes damaged by the Defendant’s judgment; and (b) the entry of the victim’s room into the victim’s room was not contrary to social rules on the premise of the victim’s consent; (c) the victim reported theft to the police immediately after the Defendant committed the instant crime; (d) CCTV images: (a) the victim reported theft of the damaged goods to the police; (e) the Defendant’s entrance into the victim’s room; and (e) the Defendant was taken a face of the victim’s unsatisfing the victim’s speech while entering the victim’s room; and (e) the Defendant’s act of theft was recognized in light of the content of the

Even if it is a crime purpose, it is invalid as consent, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of entering the victim's room for the purpose of theft constitutes a intrusion upon residence as above.

B. The Defendant’s female-friendly job offers J, even before the instant case at the court of first instance, showed that the Defendant was suffering from the instant Trts. The Defendant or the Defendant laund, and the Defendant donated the Defendant’s Cheongba to the Defendant. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant concealed inside the instant trts or Cheongba, and made a statement to the effect that the Defendant’s entry into the instant trts 205 was not the instant trts or Cheongbaba, but the instant trts and Mababa, but the Defendant was lawfully adopted and investigated by the lower court.