The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the larceny is acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) misunderstanding of facts against C, the Defendant was raped by C, as stated in the complaint on this part of this part.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's non-acceptance C was erroneous.

(2) As stated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant issued a check of 2.5 million won to H as stated in this part of the facts charged, and then did not take it out again. Even if so, this constitutes the Defendant’s property, that is, H, which is merely a trustee, or a victim’s G property not yet received the above KRW 2.5 million, cannot be deemed as a property of the Defendant, and thus, larceny is not constituted.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant stolen the above 2.5 million won.

(3) As stated in the complaint concerning this part, I stolen the Defendant’s property.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant did not admit I as the defendant.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Of the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court. Accordingly, the lower court acknowledged as follows based on the evidence as follows, the Defendant: (a) became aware of C in the Internet hosting site “fluort” where commercial sex acts between users frequently take place; (b) the Defendant entered the c with no resistance; (c) the Defendant informed or did not request that her employees, etc. report damage when the Defendant comes to the her motherel; and (d) the Defendant agreed that C would pay a taxi fee at her mother, thereby having been raped. However, the Defendant argued that he and the semiconductor manufacturer.