A. In light of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, each of the statements of witnesses F and E and the materials submitted by the counsel of the court below, the victim D’s statements are not reliable, and rather, it is possible to know the fact that the defendant brought about the victim’s wallet, which had been cashed because of the defendant’s assertion, such as the defendant’s assertion, the defendant cannot be recognized

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the basis of only reliable D's statements. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the intention of unlawful acquisition.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is consistent with the victim D's statement, such as finding out the fact that the victim F or E, who was lawfully adopted and investigated by the court below, lost the victim D, and repeatedly stated that the defendant did not bring about the wall from the defendant even though the defendant made two calls in the process of finding the wall, and that the defendant was aware that he got out of cash after telephone conversations with the defendant after finding the wall and making telephone conversations with the defendant.

A thorough examination of these points and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, we accept that D's statement has credibility, and there are various facts and judgments stated in detail by the court below is just.

In addition, if the defendant and the victim did not seem to have a close relationship to the extent that the defendant and the victim could have taken custody of their cash from the wall and take custody of their own cash among the reasons stated by the court below, it is extremely exceptional, and even if it does not seem that there was a close relationship between the defendant and the victim by taking custody of cash from the wall, the victim's intention is to live the defendant's face.