The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the criminal records of the defendant, who was seen after the instant case, the defendant's statement cannot be trusted, and there is no possibility that a person, other than the defendant, could have stolen the wall, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed a theft with one gate containing cash and merchandise coupons owned by the victim, but the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On January 12, 2017, the Defendant, from around January 12, 201 to April 14, 201, accessed the victim H, etc., who was familiar with E pentae A, 101, etc., and had a swimming pool changed to C Dong 102 with a swimming pool as he/she was the president of the penta, thereby having an access to the victim’s happiness, such as changing the lodging under C/L with a swimming pool, and making the beer’s unfold.

On January 14, 2017, at around 02:00, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol together with the victim’s daily behaviors, stolen the wallets that the victim had opened on his/her table, and stolen it by using the gap in which surveillance by the victim, etc. was neglected, the Defendant used the gap in cash amounting to KRW 7:80,000,000 and KRW 1,000,000,000,000 in cash, which is the victim’s possession, by using CJ gift certificates, gift certificates, and cultural gift certificates, etc.

2) The lower court determined that ① at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) as well as the Defendant’s wife entered and appears to have been a considerable number of victims; and (b) as long as there were no direct evidence, the Defendant thefted the wall within the gate.

It is difficult to readily conclude.