A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant brought the Defendant’s cell phone phone.

Therefore, there was no intention of theft or illegal acquisition, and the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the legitimate defense or social norms.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant recognized the theft of the victim as stated in the facts charged, and the Defendant’s intent and intent of unlawful acquisition may also be sufficiently recognized.

In addition, it cannot be said that the above act by the defendant satisfies the requirements for a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have sentenced a fine of two million won, which has been reduced by a fine for summary order (3 million won) in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant (such as the fact that damaged articles have been returned, the Defendant’s health is not good due to the polar disorder and alcohol use disorder, etc.). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, living environment, motive and background of the crime, and criminal record, as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party concerned, the sentence imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

3. Conclusion.