The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding and the misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant thought that the Defendant was a lost property and brought about a wall, and there was no intention to commit larceny. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact that the lower court recognized the Defendant’s larceny, even though the crime of larceny was not established, regardless of the establishment of the crime of larceny.

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

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) the victim, who was the place where the crime was committed in the instant case, was put on the subway station prior to the time of selling tickets; (ii) the victim was 7 stations boarding the subway station; and (iii) the victim was able to find the goods at the subway station; and (iv) immediately closed the fact that the taxi was put on the above place; and (v) returned to the above place after the lapse of several hundreds. In such a case, according to the legal principles on possession and social norms, it is deemed that the victim's possession of the above land A is maintained as it is. (ii) If another person was found in the subway station, it is highly likely that the owner of the goods will immediately go back to the subway station to find out the lost goods; and therefore, (iv) the victim might immediately inform the subway station manager of such fact; and (v) the defendant would have no other person's perception that the above goods were found.