The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant's sampling was owned by the defendant, and the sample cost was not received, and the defendant did not have been passed away.

2. It was found that the Defendant and the victim did not have any specific agreement regarding the return of the sample of this case, and that the Defendant did not have any idea of receiving the sample cost.

In light of the statement, regardless of whether or not expenses are agreed or paid, sampling was owned by the victim by the defendant by granting samples to the victim.

must be viewed.

On July 14, 2017, after the 13th anniversary of the defendant's act of taking samples kept by the victim without the victim's consent on July 27, 2017, is recognized in light of the defendant's message that the act of taking samples in custody by the victim without the victim's consent constitutes larceny by bringing another's property to another person and that the victim would not have been able to do so to do so.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

In addition, the sentencing is considered ex officio.

The value of the stolen sampling is very small to 7,500 won, and the defendant did not disclose the company information indicated in the sampling label to commit a crime without exposing it, and returned it to the victim and the victim. The defendant, including the circumstance of the delivery of the sampling in this case, stated the act in the facts charged in lieu of the facts and stated it in the facts charged. However, there is room to dispute as a general person, who is not a legal expert, as a matter of legal evaluation, including the ownership of the sampling and the legal principles of larceny.

Since the defendant appears not guilty, the defendant argued not guilty.

(2) The circumstances of the opening are not significant.

In full view of various sentencing conditions in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, details and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, and thus, is unreasonable.