The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who is an employee of a motor vehicle dealer, was driving the F New EF Sota as a trial driver, and did not have any intent to obtain unlawful acquisition. The Defendant did not see the victim’s I multi-use cargo vehicle by driving the said so-called so-called so-called Baa car, and there was no fact that the Defendant did not see the victim’s I multi-use cargo vehicle.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, E, a victim of larceny, parked the above small-scale car at an investigative agency’s time and place without sticking the key to the 112 report, and at all, the defendant, who is entirely aware of the fact, stated that K had fledd by making him, and also stated the same content (Evidence No. 2, No. 3), the victim of traffic accident and assault crime, at an investigative agency around November 14:10, 2014, the driver’s vehicle behind the vehicle in Seoul large-scale area, and then the defendant escaped, and the police officer called for the 112 report after putting the defendant, and there was no error in the judgment of the court below that the defendant visited the 10-day driver’s vehicle and stated the above 10-day driver’s face at the expense of H on the 1112 report, and there was no error of law by visiting 30-day evidence and statement on the 10-day driver’s face (H evidence).

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

(b).