The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal argues that the defendant did not bring about the goods owned by the victim, and that 30 tons of solid goods, such as the market influencies, brought about by E employees, and thus, the defendant cannot be recognized as an illegal acquisition intent for about 30 tons of the above high water. Since the above high water is a garbage with no economic value, it cannot be an object of larceny. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant stolen about 30 tons of high water, such as defluence in the market price, and about 4 tons of high water in the market price, such as defluence in the market, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(A) The Defendant’s defense counsel asserted unfair sentencing in the summary of the pleading on September 8, 2015. However, this cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal on the grounds that a new argument was filed after the date on which the appellate brief was not timely filed. 2. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the ex officio judgment prosecutor at the trial on September 2, 201, applied for changes to the effect that “E’s employees had approximately 30 tons of high water, such as the exchange of the current market in distress, and that he stolen the victim’s property with approximately 30 tons of high water from the market in distress.” The Defendant’s defense counsel requested the employees of the E to change the victim’s property to “the victim’s property with approximately 30 tons of high water, such as the exchange of the current market in distress, and this court changed to the subject matter of adjudication by permitting this. Therefore, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

(3) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake that “the part on the theft of about four tons of high water in the market price,” among the facts charged in the instant case, was deleted, the aforementioned “the part on the theft of about four tons of high water in the market price.” However, even if the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is based on the ground of ex officio destruction, the “the part on the theft of high water in the market price, such as the unrefiting of high water in the market price,” which is still subject