The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was placed on the outsideer of the store, and the main owner thought that he was abandoned and brought about it. Therefore, there was no intention to larceny.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to have caused the spread on the chair around the restaurant in B’s history. In full view of the fact that it is difficult to think that the spread was abandoned on the chair in the interior, and that there is no confirmation as to whether the defendant was abandoned the spread, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant had the intention of theft against the spread.

The defendant's above assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. The lower court’s sentencing appears to have been appropriately determined by fully considering the grounds for sentencing (the fact that it is difficult to live as a recipient of basic living benefits) favorable to the Defendant, including the amount of damaged goods, whether they are returned, circumstances after the crime, and records of the same kind, etc., and there are no special circumstances to ex post facto change the sentencing, and thus, the Defendant’

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.