The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant for mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles were examined.

작업에 입을 바지가 없어 이 사건 공소사실과 같이 바지를 가지고 나오다가 ‘삑소리’가 났고, 이에 바로 사과하고 바지를 돌려주었다.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant is guilty of larceny.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 300,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and there is no error of mistake

(A) A religious reason alleged by the Defendant or immediately pardoned circumstances, etc. does not affect the establishment of larceny. Determination of an unreasonable sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and a discretionary decision is made within reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015.