Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

On March 2, 2016, around 15:40 on March 2, 2016, the Defendant and J stolen part of this part of the facts charged (joint larceny part) and the Defendant and J stolen the victim’s mobile phone by inserting the Defendant’s hand over the victim’s mobile phone in the front of V points U in Busan Geum-gu (the date, time, place, etc. of the crime of the lower court No. 3) (the date, place, etc. of the crime of the lower court). The Defendant and J stolen the victim’s property by combining the victim’s cell phone in a way that they view the victim’s cell phone in

The lower court determined that, although there were requests for cooperation in investigation (ct Perusal, etc.), investigation reports (related to confirmation of the suspect's moving route at the time of the self-defendant's act on March 2, 2), investigation reports (related to the forwarding ctv analysis), investigation reports (related to the Cctv analysis), and investigation reports (ctv image attachment), the Defendant consistently denied the co-existence with the J by asserting that the above part of the crime was a single crime from the investigative agency to this court, and the J also stated at the investigative agency as above. The evidence presented by the prosecutor prior to the submission by the prosecutor was proved without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed this part of the crime jointly with the J.

On the ground that it is difficult to see this part of the facts charged of the joint larceny was acquitted.

The recognition of conviction of the above-mentioned legal principles is room for a judge to make a reasonable doubt.