The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles intentionally steals handphones, the Defendant is not guilty of larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's legitimately adopted and investigated evidence as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is correct, and there is no error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as argued by

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) The lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant stolen the victim’s goods, and there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the confessions. 2) According to the black boom images of the bus that the Defendant boarded on board, the Defendant found the victim’s handphones on board the bus at around 20:30, which was left away from the victim’s side, immediately inserted it in his shopping bags, and immediately left the bus after two stops, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant was not the initial destination, at around 20:32, even if he was not the first destination.

However, as to the circumstances leading up to such action, the Defendant initially stated in the investigative agency that he thought that the Handphone was the Handphone of the victim and continued to hold the victim. However, the Defendant did not ask the victim because the Handphone was not visible, and that he got the Handphone of the high-priced level, and that he got the Handphone to get it down down.

In addition, the Defendant, immediately after getting off all the victim's Handphones with sufficient learning, caused the victim to not have contact even if the victim had contact several times. The victim's Handphones were arbitrarily initialized, and the victim did not return the Handphones for about four months until he was present at the police and was investigated.

In full view of these points, the defendant himself runs.