A. In fact, it was true that the defendant found the wallets owned by the victim at the time and place of the decision of the court below, and there was no intention to acquire unlawful profits by the defendant, because the defendant, with the wallets at the time, was put into the wall box to return the wall from the convenience store and the victim, was put into the wall box to E.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1) on the defendant's assertion that there was no intention to illegally obtain the above landmark, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant was guilty on the ground that the defendant's intention to obtain the above landmark could be recognized on the ground that (i) the defendant's intent to obtain the above landmark was excluded from the right holder's right holder's right to use and dispose of goods in the convenience store, and (ii) the defendant's intent to use and dispose of goods in the convenience store, (iii) the police and the prosecutor's office requested that the defendant be put in the friendly box at the time when the defendant got out of the lock, and (iv) the defendant did not obtain the victim's consent, such as the defendant's intent to use and dispose of goods in accordance with the economic law, such as his own property, and (v) the defendant did not obtain the victim's consent from 99 days after being declared as 9.