The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant was merely aware that one of the unmanned stacks installed in the instant B Ba, which the Defendant brought up to one of the unmanned stacks installed in the instant B B, and he was aware that the above unmanned stack was not locked, and he was out of the road, and he was aware that stacks were out of the road, and that stacks delivered on the day of the instant case were also stored together with the above gate, and the Defendant did not take it out with the intent to steal it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it can be acknowledged that the above bank was put into the door of the defendant's car, and the above door was set into the door of the party's car and the above door of the door of the party's car, and the defendant's car was set up in the door of the party's car with the above door and the above door of the door of the party's car, and the above door of the party's car was set up in the door of the party's car, and the above door of the party's car was set into the door of the party's car.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is difficult to believe that the defendant was aware that the above bank and the defendant's alternative compensation was placed together with the above unmanned substitute without a yellow situation, and that the above substitute compensation was taken out by the defendant's substitute compensation with the defendant's substitute compensation, and it is hard to believe that the defendant knew the above substitute compensation as the defendant's substitute compensation, and that the defendant taken out the above substitute compensation as the victim's substitute substitute by the defendant's intention to steal. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.