The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as a misunderstanding of facts, did not have stolen goods in the vehicle because they were left there and there was no fact that they stolen goods.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant stolen the victim’s property from the instant vehicle.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and the above assertion by Defendant is without merit.

1) On February 14, 2017, the victim parked a vehicle at around 21:00 and returned home on February 15, 2017, but found that cash, etc. stored in the vehicle at around 07:20 on February 15, 2017 was stolen and immediately reported to the investigation agency.

The statements made by the victim concerning theft facts and damaged articles are consistent and sufficiently reliable in light of the contents of the statements.

2) On February 15, 2017, around 00:50 on February 15, 2017, the fact that the Defendant posted from the head of the victim’s vehicle can be confirmed through CCTV.

3) After an urgent arrest, the Defendant stated in the police that there was no other strings to the string of the house at the time of the crime, and that there was no other strings. On the following day, the Defendant did not enter the string of the vehicle, but did not enter the vehicle.

The prosecutor made a statement, and the prosecutor opened the door of the vehicle, and there has been no objects that can be stolen at the time of oncoming the door.

The statements were changed from time to time according to the circumstances, such as statements.

4) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant had already opened a vehicle door and who could have stolen the cash, etc. of the victim first, but the victim had been installed an option automatically locking the vehicle in this case within three minutes from the deduction of the height of the vehicle in this case.

statement is made.

5) On February 15, 2017, the time when the defendant entered the instant vehicle and moved out.