All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendants merely thought the instant bicycle as a non-principal and did not have any intention to commit a theft.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (for the Defendants, 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) that is unfair for sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. In determining the assertion of mistake of facts, if a other person renounces ownership, acquired it as an abandoned article, and a justifiable reason is recognized for such misunderstanding, the thief’s criminal intent cannot be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do971, Jan. 17, 1989). The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim discovered the theft of the instant bicycle on December 3, 2016 when he installed the instant bicycle at work log in front of the subway station located in the subway station while leaving the subway station on December 3, 2016; ② the victim discovered the theft of the instant bicycle on December 5, 2016 when he left the subway station.

The defendants stated that they had a locking device, but they were found to have failed in his hand.

(3) In full view of the fact that the victim’s place where the bicycle of this case was installed is a public bicycle riding box, etc., the victim is a short period of time that the time when the victim did not use the bicycle of this case remains less than one day, and the victim left or abandoned the bicycle of this case without permission.

There is no extenuating circumstance to see the bicycle of this case, and as long as the victim normally installs the bicycle of this case with a locking device on the bicycle riding machine, there is a justifiable reason to believe that the defendants misleads the bicycle of this case as a non-owned product.

subsection (b) of this section.

Rather, in light of the above circumstances, there was a perception that the Defendants had to transfer the instant bicycle, which is the property owned by another person, to the Defendants, against their will, under the possession of the Defendants.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below contains an error of mistake of facts.

§ 23.