The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of a theft of the property of the victim corporation, the court below convicted the defendant of the above part, on the ground that the defendant committed a theft of the property as stated in the No. 1, 2, 4, 6 through 10, 14, 17 through 19, 21, 23 through 25 (hereinafter “the crime of theft at each construction site of this case”) in the annexed list of crimes in the annexed list of crimes, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal ex officio, the prosecutor examined the facts charged in the instant case ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal ex officio, and the prosecutor changed the name of the crime to be "Habitual larceny" by applying Articles 332, 329, and 330 of the Criminal Act in the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," but in light of the criminal facts and the modified applicable provisions of law, this appears to be a clerical error in the "Habitual Residence Larceny", and thus, the applicable provisions of this case are deemed to be a clerical error in the "Habitual Residence Larceny", and the judgment below was no longer maintained," and the applicable provisions of this case are "Articles 5-4 (1) and 329, 330, and 35 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" in "Articles 332, 329, 330, and 35 of the Criminal Act."

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined below.

3. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of committing a theft at each construction site of the instant case.