The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the larceny among the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts, the defendant, with the presumption and implied consent of the victim G, has come to possess 2 kgg of Si rice and 1 of Si rice in the legal branch, so the judgment of the court below that recognized the establishment of larceny against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant had the rice and the two seconds at the Sinju Party without the consent of the victim G is recognized without the consent of the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

The Defendant left the place of the instant crime, even though he was able to take the main rice and the two seconds within the law of the F temple, and G, who was the manager of the inspection who observed the instant case, considered “dwarfing”, the Defendant left the scene as they were.

However, the defendant was unable to escape from disturbance by breaking back the glass of the temple again after diving.

As a result of the G's report, the police officer was dispatched to the site, and the defendant tried to flee with the voice of "I am able to do not have rice during the city," and the police officer was arrested as a flagrant offender on the job.

B. G consistently states that there is no possibility to say that the Defendant would take things in the law.

On the other hand, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime and was unable to properly memory the day.

C. Before having committed the instant crime, the Defendant, while drunk, was frightened to F, was frighting to a f, and G was first aware of the Defendant due to that day.

In light of the relationship between the defendant and G, G is within the law for the defendant who has no special relationship with G.