The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

One new preferential treatment for seized construction sections (No. 1).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to each of the larcenys in this case, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of each of the larcenys in this case, was erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant was merely guilty of embezzlement, not the criminal intent of theft.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. On August 11, 2014, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the victim F, at around 03:00 on August 11, 2014, reported that: (a) around August 11, 2014, the victim F reported that the cans, beer and beer in beer and beer in beer and the beer in beer and the beer should be placed on beer and the beer should be placed on beer; and (b) there was no wall be any return from beer.

The defendant stated that he had the cans of beer and cans of beer and cans of beer and cans of beer in beer on the beer on the beer of the above beer, and because there were no people around the beer, the above victim was able to drink and drink a caner in beer.

In light of the fact that the above victim’s statement that beer was made and beererer and beerererer, and the above victim’s statement was consistent with the above victim’s statement, and that the beer’s identification cards and other important items were included, and that it was not ordinary to put the beer on the beer in a park, which is a place open to the public at the 3rd of the new wall, and the beer’s book was put on the beer.

It is reasonable to view it.

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant had been aware that the above victim's possession is still in progress, and that the defendant had been faced with the wall.

The defendant's assertion in this part is reasonable, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. On July 2015, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the said assertion by explaining the detailed reasons in the part of the “determination on the Defendant and his/her defense counsel’s assertion.”