The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant thought that he was abandoned in front of an abandoned house, and brought about fluorts, there was no intention to commit larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant stated at the police station that “At the time of the commission of garbage and recycled goods, the Defendant would have been able to take out the aging movement at the time.” However, according to CCTV screen, it is difficult to see that the victim’s side sports at the time of the commission of the victim was a tree in front of the victim’s house, and that there was no waste or recycled goods, and it was difficult to see that the victim’s side sports was abandoned. ② The victim’s CCTV was confirmed and turned back to the Defendant, and led the victim was taken into CCTV while denying the fact that the Defendant was frighten and the Defendant was frighted. However, upon the investigation by the police, the Defendant denied the crime of larceny in light of the fact that the victim was frightened, and that the victim was frightd.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s age of 70 years and the economic situation is not good, and the father’s return to the victim is considered.

However, the court below issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 which is not agreed with the victim, but sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,000,00 in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there is no special change in circumstances or circumstances newly considered in sentencing after the decision of the court below. Other character, character, environment, and environment of the defendant.