All the judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to the judgment of the court below of first instance) the Defendant was located far from the previous floor at the time and place stated on the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of first instance.

C’s wallets were carried to find the master, and they were carried to find the master, as stated in the facts constituting the same crime, in order to hold a bridge with a large number of passengers available to C within the previous vehicle using the same gap and to take them into account as a method of “retailer” referring to C’s wallets containing cash, etc.

Although there was no theft by the Defendant, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the fact that only the statements, etc. at the court of the first instance, which was insufficient to recognize this part of the charges, were made in the first instance court.

B. The sentence that was sentenced by the second instance court against the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, because the sentence that was sentenced by the second instance court (with respect to the judgment of the second instance court) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against the first and second judgment, and the court of first instance decided to concurrently examine each appeal against each judgment of the court below. Each of the offenses against the defendant in the judgment of the court below is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Each of the offenses against the defendant in the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, each of the judgment of the court below against the defendant should be reversed.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts, in particular, C’s statements at the police and the first instance court, the police protocol, and the investigation report (the police officer at the scene of crime).