The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts (as to Article 1-2 of the crime in the judgment of the court below) recognized that he was stolen by bringing a bank owned by the victim G containing a prone bag, but there is no fact that he was stolen by the mobile phone period owned by the above victim at that time.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof for the facts constituting an offense prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below determined that the defendant stolen not only the bank owned by the victim G at the time, but also the cell phone phone based on the statement about the damaged goods at the investigative agency of the victim G and the court of original trial.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, i.e., (i) the victim G made a statement to the effect that “the envelope was stolen” at the time of the 112 declaration on the day of this case and on the day of the am 112 A.M. police investigation, but it appears that the damaged article was added to the purport that the victim was subjected to the last time of the mobile phone. However, there is any difficulty in easily understanding the victim’s delayed delivery of the damaged article, and rather, it cannot be ruled out that the mobile phone was lost at another place, contrary to the victim’s assertion, even if the victim’s cell phone was located on the vehicle at the time.