The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit a theft of the damaged goods of the inundation attached to the judgment of the court below.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, (1) the following circumstances are recognized by comprehensively recognizing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in the part Nos. 1 through 5 of the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below, i.e., the discovery of multiple posts in the Defendant’s residence, and (2) the victims discovered a dog where the stolen one was worn by the investigative agency and the court below among the dogs discovered in the Defendant’s residence.

The statement is consistent and specifically stating the characteristics of each side of the statement. ③ With respect to the crime Nos. 1, the defendant was found in the site of the case; ④ with respect to CCTV installed around about 1 km in each damaged place, the vehicle of the defendant was taken on July 8, 2014; ⑤ with respect to the crime No. 4 times in the end, the vehicle of the defendant was taken on the black box installed around the victim M vehicle parked in the vicinity of the damaged place on July 10, 2014; and ⑤ the vehicle of the defendant was taken around 10:30 on July 10, 2014 on the black box installed in the victim M vehicle parked in the vicinity of the damaged place; ② the defendant went frequently to the BE hospital for illness; and the defendant was unable to open the bE hospital on the back of the 2nd and the opening of the 2nd and the opening of the 3rd.

However, in full view of the fact that AM stated in an investigative agency that “the Defendant’s illness was true, or there was no time to find it late at night,” it can be acknowledged that the Defendant stolen each damaged article Nos. 1 through 5 of the crime sight table as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(2) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in the part No. 6 No. 5 of the annexed crime list in the judgment below can be recognized.