The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. The determination that the Defendant subsequently admitted and reflected the Defendant’s criminal act; theft goods were returned to the victim; the fact that there is a family member to support, etc. is not consistent with the Defendant’s favorable circumstances; the source of cash and check 260,000 won and precious metal 260,000 won; and the statement about the details of custody are different from the statement of the Defendant living together with the Defendant at the time of seizure; the Defendant renounced ownership of the said cash, check, and precious metal at the time of seizure; there is no reason to waive ownership if the Defendant legitimately acquired the said cash, check, and precious metal as alleged by the Defendant; even if the Defendant received the benefits from the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant, it is difficult to easily obtain the circumstance that the Defendant kept the said cash and checks in a string month; in light of the fact that the Defendant had no capacity or storage of them in the 200,000 won in the string of the string of the 2000,000).

In addition, there is no agreement with the victim up to the trial of one party, and the defendant has been punished more than six times, including one suspended sentence and two unauthorized driving due to larceny.