The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the Defendant did not steal the cash owned by the victim at the cash withdrawal period, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the Defendant did not impose punishment on the Defendant on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, although the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss that was unable to make a normal judgment due to cerebral disease at

(c)

In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence of a fine of one million won imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and the results of the investigation of evidence by means of the reproduction of “CCTV video data” in the first instance court, the Defendant can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant stolen the cash owned by the victim during the cash withdrawal period as stated in the instant facts charged.

Ultimately, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In light of various circumstances, such as the background and means of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the commission of the instant crime, which was acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things due to cerebral disability at the time of the commission of the crime.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, there is no reason for misunderstanding of the legal principles of the defendant.

(c)

In full view of the arguments in this case and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records, the lower court’s sentencing should include various reasons for sentencing as alleged by the Defendant.