A. Fact-misunderstanding (Defendant A) ① With regard to the part of the instant charge No. 3-A, Defendant A’s discovery and withdrawal from the victim M’s vehicle is the entire amount of KRW 3.60,000 in cash and KRW 1 mobile phone, and the total market price of KRW 6.10,000 in cash, such as this part of the charges, is not the theft of property equivalent to KRW 3.310,00 in cash.

② As to the facts charged in the instant case, Article 3-2 (b) and (c) of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the said Defendant did not commit this part of the Act.

③ Of the facts charged in the instant case, Article 3-4

항 부분과 관련하여, 위 피고인은 길가에 주차된 차량의 손잡이만 툭 쳐 보고 지나간 것이고 물건을 절취하려 한 사실이 없다.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced the Defendants (Defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor; Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, found Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, (i) submitted to the police a written statement to the effect that the victim M was stolen of property worth KRW 3310,000,000 in total, including cash KRW 6.10,000 (Evidence No. 133 of the evidence record), and (ii) Defendant A returned to the Si of Daegu at any time from January 31, 2017 to his inns during night hours, and appears to have colored the subject of larceny (Evidence No. 226-233 of the evidence record), and was at the place of crime as stated in Article 3-2(b) and (c) of the instant facts charged (Evidence No. 162-165 of the evidence record, No. 3903-393 of the evidence record), and was at the place of crime as stated in Article 3-2(d) and (c) of the instant facts charged.

According to the investigation report of the Z preparation of the police officer in relation to the claim (the evidence record No. 166 pages) and CCTV images, the above defendant is identical to this part of the facts charged.