A. The Defendant only extracted from a smartphone to return it to the owner, not to steal it.

(b)the first deliberation penalty (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. On the grounds of detailed circumstances, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of theft of the instant smartphone by using the gap in which the victim locked.

In light of the evidence duly examined by the first instance court and the records of this case, the first instance judgment is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant.

It does not appear.

B. There is no change in circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the judgment of the first instance court, and considering the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the first deliberation sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.